Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in dismissing the petition and directed a fresh CBI investigation into the alleged murder.

Summary

The Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association filed a public‑interest writ petition seeking a judicial enquiry into the abduction and alleged murder of Advocate Kulwant Singh, his wife and child, which had triggered a prolonged strike by lawyers. The High Court admitted the petition but a five‑judge bench later dismissed it as withdrawn, holding that the petition primarily concerned the hardship caused to litigants by the strike and did not qualify as public‑interest litigation. The Bar Association appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court failed to discharge its constitutional duty to ensure an independent investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in dismissing the petition and that the matter required a fresh, independent inquiry. Consequently, the Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation, ordering assistance from the police and the State, and stayed the ongoing trial pending the CBI report. The appeal was disposed of with directions for a CBI probe.

Issues considered

The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn despite its admission.
Whether the writ petition qualifies as public‑interest litigation.
The constitutional duty of the High Court to order an independent investigation into alleged murder.
The propriety of the Supreme Court directing a CBI investigation in such a case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 364
TADA (Prevention of Terrorism) Acts. 3, s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

public interest litigationwrit jurisdictionjudicial enquiryCBI investigationbar strikeconstitutional dutyhigh courtcriminal lawmurderabduction

Judgment

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION A
CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

DECEMBER 7, 1993
B
(KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.)

Public Interest Litigation--Writ Jurisaiction--Constitutional Duties of
the High Court.~igh Court not taking note of the controversy which shocked
the bar of the region and pennitting the withdrawal of a Writ Petition which C
sought an enquiry into the matter of the abduction of an Advocate and his
family-View taken by it that the controversy raised in the Writ Petition was
confined to the hardship caused to the litigating public by the strike '1y the
Lawyers-Held not justified.
D
A practising Advocate K, his wife and infant child upon a visit to a
Police Station were missing and were feared killed, leading to unrest and

-
""""
I
strikes by the bar in Punjab. 'lbe Government rejected the demand of the
Bar setting up a judicial enquiry Jnto the occurrence. 'lbe High Court Bar
Association thereafter held an enquiry and found the involvement.of the
local police in the killing of the lawyer and his family. 'lbe Police recorded E

• a confession in which the detenue admitted the slaying of Kand his family
family members.

A Writ Petition in Public interest W!lS filed ·by a resident of Ambala
seeking a Judicial enquiry by a inember of the higher judiciary in the State. F
'Thereafter the Bar Association of the Punjab & Haryana and the Bar .
Council of Punjab & Haryana were impleaded as parties and after taking
affidavits on record after notice, the Division Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court admitted the Writ Petition and observing that the
petition involved general public interest and importance, referred the
matter to a Full Bench of the High Court. 'lbe Writ Petition was dismissed G
as withdrawn after final hearing by the Full Bench. 'lbe Full Bench was of
the view that the graveman of the Writ Petition was. the hardship caused
to the litigating public by the strike by the lawyers and therefore was of
the view that the admission of the Writ Petition by the Division Bench did
not convert the petition into a public interest litigation. In this view of the H
• 915
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199:3J SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
~· .
A matter the request of the Bar to keep the petition alive as the relief of
judicial enquiry was being .sought by the Bar into the abduction and
possible murder of the Advocate's family was rejected. Disposing of the
appeals filed against the said judgment, this. Court

Hf:LD : 1.1. The Full Bench of the High Court was not justified in
B closing its eyes and ears to the controversy which had shocked the Bar in
the region and should have directed an independent investigatioli/enquiry
into the mysterious abduction and alleged murder of the Advocate and his
family•. The High Court also failed to perform the duty entrusted to it
under the Constitution. (925-F-G]
c 2. The CBI is directed to take up the investigation of the case and
the Home Secretary Punjab, Senior Superintendent of Police Ropar and
the concerned SHO are directed to provide all assistance to CBI. (926-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7243 of
D 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2376of1993.

Rajinder Sachher and Ravindra Bana for the Appellant.
E
G.K. Chatrath, Attorney General, Walia Assistant Attorney General,
R.S. Suri, G.K. Bansal and Thinlay Topagay for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F Special leave granted.

This appeal is a sequal to an unfortunate occurrence dated January
25, 1993 wherein Kulwant _Singh, Advocate, practising at the District
Courts, Ropar, his wife and a child aged about two years were alleged to
have been abducted and murdered. The lawyer fraterD.ity in general and
G the advocates practising at the High Court and the District Courts in the
States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh were not
satisfied with the police investigation. The Pun.jab and Haryana High Court
Bar Association (Bar Association) demanded a judicial enquiry into the
occurrence by a sitting Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or a
, H Vigilance Judge belonging to the higher Judiciary. Their demand, ha~
P & H BAR ASSN. v. STATE 917

not been acceded to the by State Government, the Bar Association went A
on indefinite strike with effect from February 6, 1993. Later on, the District
Bar Associations in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory
of Chandigarh also went on strike thereby stopping the functioning of the
Courts throughout the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High court.
An action committee formed by the Bar Association held an enquiry into B
the matter and submitted its report on February 14, 1993. The report is
reproduced he~eunder : -
1

"REPORT OF THE KILLING OF MR. KULWANT SINGH
ADVOCATE, HIS WIFE AND TWO YEARS OLD SON.
c
Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court formed an
"Action Committee" for the release of Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advo-
cate, his wife and two years old son, who were alleged to have been
abducted/detained by the Ropar Police on 25th Jan. 1993.
D
The brief facts regarding detention/abduction of Mr. Kulwant
Singh, Advocate and his family and child Mr. Kulwant Singh was
trying for the release of one Mrs. Manjit Kaur and her minor son
who were being illegally detained by Ropar Police. Manjit Kaur
belonged to the village Budha Bora and Mr. Kulwant Singh also
belonged to the same village. The Panchayat of said village had E
requested Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate to get Manjit and her son
released from illegal custody of the Police. On 25th Jan. 1993 at
about 9.25 P.M. Mr. Kulwant Singh rang up the police station to
check up whether Manjit Kaur and her minor son had been
released or not. He was told that two had been released and he F
could come and take them as the police wanted to hand them over
to some responsible person. As a lady was to b.e brought, Mr.
Kulwant Singh told his wife to accon:pany to the police station.
There was no one to look after the child as Mr. J agir Singh,
Kulwant Singh's father was only one left behind in the house and
as such the child was also taken alongwith by Mr. Kulwant Singh G
to the police station. Mr. Kulwant Singh and his family left for the
police station, Ropar at about 9.30 P.M. in their Maruti car and
have not been heard of since then. Mr. Jagir Singh, father of Mr.
Kulwant Singh, met the President of the Ropar District Bar As-
sociation and informed him about the whole thing. The two then H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. ~

A contacted the S.H.O. Police Station Ropar and also D.S.P. Ropar.
Mr. Jagir Singh then met the S.S.P. the S.S.P. told Mr. Jagir Singh
that Mr. Kulwant Singh is not in the custody of Ropar Police and
that he may have been taken away by police of some other District.

That five members led by Convener of Action Committee
B visited Ropar on 4th Feb. 1993 and met the members of the local
, Bar Association. They then met the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar
;_at his residence and told him about their concern regarding Mr.
Kulwant Singh and his family. The D.C. told the Action committee
members that he had checked up with the local police and that
c Mr. Kulwant Singh and his family have not been picked up by the
Ropar Police. The Police has nothing against him as he is not
involved in any crime. He said that the police sent wireless mes-
sages all over Punjab and that some information regarding Mr.
Kulwant Singh and his family will come soon.

D The Action Committee members then met the S.P. Operation
Ropar as the S.S.P. was not there. The S.P. told the Action
Committee that he had never heard of Mr. Kulwant Singh and the·
Ropar Police had nothing against him, and neither he is. wanted
by the Ropar Police.
E On 5th Feb. 1993 the Action Committee members met the
Chief Minister, Punjab in the morning. The Chief Minister also
told them that he will enquire into the whereabouts of Mr. Kulwant
Singh and that the Action Committee may contact him on 9th Feb. ~

1993. The High Court Bar went on strike the same day. '
F
On 6th of Feb. 1993, the Action Committee met the S.S.P.
Ropar. The S.S.P. told the members that Mr. Kulwant Singh is not
in the custody of Ropar Police. However, he said that one Lucky
a known terrorist and· another Lucky, son of Manjit Kaur sur-
rendered before the Police at Patiala and Ropar respectively and
G that the interrogation of both is on. He also assured the members
that...... some thing........ will inform the members about it.

On 7th Feb. 1993, Sh. Navkiran Singh the member of the Action
Committee was told by the S.S.P. on telephone that Mr. Kulwant
H Singh and his wife and two years old son have been killed and that
} P & H BAR ASSN. v. STATE 919

he will give the details tomorrow morning. On 8th Feb. 1993, the A
S.S.P. informed the President of the Bar that Lucky had confessed
that Mr. Kulwant Singh and his family have been killed by him a.nd
one Surjit Singh, as both wanted to surrender before the police
and Mr. Kulwant Singh was against it because he thought that the
surrender would expose him.
B
The police story as told by the S.S.P. is unbelievable. There are
glaring loopholes which cannot be plugged easily. The dead bodies
of the three have not been found till date. The car has been
recovered bµt its stereo, stepnee and its number plate are missing.
It is for the: first time in the history of Punjab terrorism that the C
terrorists have tried to hide their crime by picking and throwing
the dead bodies in the canal. The terrorists would not have
removed the stereo and stepnee and thrown the car in the canal.
The very purpose of terrorist crime is defeated if the crime is
hidden, because the motive behind the terrorist crime i:; to ter-
rorise. It is pertinent to mention here that the culprits surrendered D
before the police on the same day after the High Court Bar raised
a hue and cry about the whereabouts .of Mr. Kulwant Singh and
his family. It is rather strange that the same police which was
declaring on the roof tops that they have nothing against Mr.
Kulwant Singh is now claiming in the same breath that Mr. Kulwant E
Singh was the king-pin and that he wanted to kill Beant Singh in
the near future and also blast Ropar Thermal plant. The substantial
evidence goes to prove that Ropar Police is responsible for the
brutal killing of Mr. Kulwant Singh, his wife and his two years old
son.
F
Sci/-
ACTION COMMITTEE
KULWANT SINGH MURDER CASE.

1. Gian Singh Dhuriwala, Convener.
G
2. Ajay Pal Singh, Secretary.

MEMBERS

Ranjan Lakhanpal, Puran Singh Hundal, Amar Singh Chahal, H.S.
Gill, Rajvinder Singh Bains, Harbhajan Singh, Navkiran Singh, J.C. H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Verma, Surinder Lamba, R.S. Tacoria and K.C. Azad.

Chandigarh, 14 February, 1993."

The Statement of Harpreet Singh alias Lucky, son of Gurmeet Singh
Saini, aged 20 years was recorded by Shri Sohan Lal, Superintendent,
B Police Headquarter, Ropar on February 14, 1993. It would be useful to
reproduce the said statement hereunder : -

"Statement of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky s/o Gurmeet Singh Saini
aged 20 years in connection with regard to case FIR No. 10 dated
8.2.93 under sections 364/302/201 IPC and l/4/5/ of T.A.D.A.(P)
c Act Police Station Rup Nagar District Ropar.

I reside in village Bahadurpur. We two brothers and one sister
and my parents are alive. I studied upto primary at my village
Bahadurpur and after doing 10th class from Government High
School; Village Lodhi Majra I passed 10 + 1 from D.A.V. Public
D
School Ropar and then I did two years course in turner from l.T.I.
While studying at village Lodhi Majra I became friend of Kulbir
Singh r/o Ghanauli and Kuldip Singh r/o Lodhi Majra. Kulbir Singh
of village Ghanauli is running a shop of repairing and selling
watches at village Nuhon:. Kulbir Singh got him introduced Kulwant
E Sit.igh Saini, a lawyer of Ropar. Kulwant Singh Saini, Advocate
thereafter got him introduced to one Gurmeet Singh militant of
K.L.F. (Khalistan Liberation Force) out fit. About 1/1/2 months
ago I, Kuldip Singh r/o Lodhi Majra, Surjit Singh of Attari, Gur-
meet Singh Chhota Fauji, Kulbir singh of Ghanauli and Kulwant
Singh Saini, Advocate conspired to kill Chief Minister of Punjab
F by getting explosive in a truck and by exploding the same truck on
the road side. Thermal Plant of Ropar was decided to explode
\
with a bomb and it was decided to commit mass killing of people
belonging to particular community at Ropar and Ghanauli. Since
before this I and Surjit singh of Attari had Committed murder of
Comrade Ram Murti with bullets and police had come to know
G
about this thereafter police had started visiting my house in my
search. Myself and Surjit Singh went to the house of Kulwant Singh
Advocate and told him that we wanted to surrender before the
police. Kulwant Singh, Advocate replied that "your would not
surrender." He said "if you would surrender the entire people
H would he unfolded and neither Thermal Plant could be exploded

t
P & H BAR ASSN. v. STATE 921

nor the Chief Minister could be eliminated. Nor people of one A
community would also be killed. He also stated that if we sur-
rendered then we (myself and Surjit Singh) alongwith our families
would be got killed from militants. He also stated that "you would
not go out of militants organization." I and Surjit Singh conspired
and thereafter summoned Kulwant Singh to Bela Chowk on the
pretext of holding community. Kulwant Singh Saini Advocate B
alongwith his wife and children came in a maruti car on the fixed
time. I and Surjit Singh sat in his car and took him to floating
restaurant at Sihhand on the pretext of holding community. On
having occasion we killed Kulwant Singh, Advocate, his wife and
kid with bullets and thereafter dead bodies alongwith car were C
thrown in Bhakhra canal. After few days I disclosed this fact to
Avtar Singh Nambardar to produce him before the police. I have
got recovered the car of Kulwant Singh after disclosing the place
of occurrence to the police.

R.O.& A.C. D
Sd/- Sd/-
Harpreet Singh (Sohan Lal)
Supdt. of Police
Headquarter, Ropar
14.2.93
E
I verified that accused Harpreet Singh @ Lucky son of Gurmit
Singh Saini r/o Bahadurpur district Rupnagar has made above
confessional statement in my presence which he has made with
free will. Whatever Harpreet Singh stated only that has been
recorded. F

Sd/-
(Sohan Lal)
Supdt. of Police
Rupnagar." G

One Suresh Kumar, son of Shri Som Parkash, resident of Ambala
(Haryana) filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1376 of 1993 before the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in public interest. The law points and the prayers in
the said writ petition were as under : H
A
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

"That the following law points involved in this writ petiton requires
--
the consideration by this Hon'ble Cour!: -

(I) Whether it is in the interest of the respondent that doubts
regarding mystery surround gruesome murder is unearthed and
the truth brought out by judicial enquiry?
B
(II) Whether the interest of justice requires that a judicial
enquiry be conducted by a Sitting Judge of the High Court or a
District Judge or a Vigilance Judge especially when the interests
of the litigating masses are suffering?

C It is, therefore, prayed that a·writ in the nature of mandamus
may be issued to the respondent directing them to order a judicial
enquiry by a sitting Judge of the High Court or a District Judge
or a Vigilance Judge belonging to the higher judiciary, to go into
the circumstances in which the gruesome murder of late shri
D Kulwant Singh, Advocate of Ropar, his wife and minor child took
place. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem proper and
any direction befitting the occasion may kindly be issued."

On March 3, 1993, a Division Bench of the High Court issued notice
of motion returnable on March 12, 1993. The High Court also issued notice
E to the Bar Association of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana through
its President and to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana through its
Chairman. Both the Associations were directed to be impleaded as parties
to the writ petition. On March 16, 1993, the Division Bench of the High
Court passed the following order : -
F "Affidavits on behalf of the respondents are allowed to be placed
on records.

The petition raises substantial questions of law of obvious
general public interest and importance. We consequently admit it
to a Full Bench, with a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice that
G
considering the urgency of the issues involved, the matter be placed
before the Full Bench at the earliest.

Sd/-
(S.S. Sodhi)
H Judge
P & H BAR ASSN. v. STATE 923

Sd/- A
(V.K. Bali)
Judge

March 16, 1993."

The writ petition was finally heard by a Five-Judge Bench of the High B
Court and was dismissed as withdrawn by a speaking order dated March
19, 1993.

Mr. G.S. Grewal, senior advocate appearing for the Punjab and
Haryana High Court Bar Association, Mr. H.S. Hudda, senior advocate C
appearing for the Bar Council and Mr. S.C. Mohanta, senior advocate
appearing for various other Bar associations vehemently contended before
the Five-Judge Bench of the High Court that the writ petition was in the
nature of a public interest litigation and the same could not be allowed to
be withdrawn. It was further argued that since the lawyers in the States of
Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh were on strike for D
·.~
more than six weeks and were demanding an independent enquiry into the
mysterious and tragic death of Kulwant Singh Advocate and his family, it
would be in the interest of justice to finally adjudicate on the points raised
in the writ petition. The Bench, however, rejected the contention and
dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on the following reasoning : -
E
"We may point out, at the out set, that in our view the tone and
tenor of the petition as framed by the. petitioner is the hardship
caus~d to the litigant public due to the strike by the members of
the Bar. The real emphasis in our view, is on the situation arising
out of the lawyers strike. While referring to the strike, the F
petitioner has no doubt mentioned about the disappearance of Mr.
Kulwant Sir.gh, his wife and their minor child in mysterious cir-
cumstances and demand of the members of the Bar that. a judicial
enquiry be ordered. This, in our view, is the background for the
members of the Bar to go on strike. On the other hand, the written G
statement filed on behalf of the High Court Bar Association seeks
to raise much larger issues. ID; other words, the tenor of the written
statement filed by the Bar Association and the Bar Council is
materially different from that the petition as originally framed.

In our view, there is a vital distinction between the original H
A
924 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.-

petition filed by the petitioner and the stand taken by the added
-
respondents. Reading between the lines, the reference of the
former is to save the "litigant" and that of the latter is to save the
"lawyer". In one case the relief is claimed against the members of
the Bar and in the other the relief is claimed against the State. We
do not think that we could be justified in permitting the proxy war
B in the name of litigation styled as public interest litigation when
the real sufferer is the litigant public. Ordinarily one would expect
a broad identity of interest in the litigant and the lawyer which is
lacking in the present case.

c For the purpose of the present matter, it is not necessary to go
into the larger question as to the parameters of public interest
litigation in general. What appears to be settled position of law is
that whereas any person. can set the criminal law. into motion, no
stranger can challenge conviction or other adverse order recorded
against a person under the garb of public interest litigation. Such
D action can be taken by the person concerned and where such
person is under a disability, by his next friend etc. This in addition
to the fact that the Court on its own is bound to provide a counsel
to the accused at the State expense. Since the matter relating to
alleged murder of Mr. Kulwant Singh and his family members is
E sub judice, no stranger can maintain a petition under the garb of
public interest litigation.

Viewing it from another angle, the mere fact that the Motion
Bench has admitted the writ petition of Suresh Kumar for con-
F sideration of the Full Bench does not necessarily conclude the
question whether, in fact, the writ petition relates to a matter of
public interest litigation. It was only a prim af acie view of the matter
that the writ petition was admitted, which the petitioner now seeks
to withdraw. It is axiomatic that no order of the Court can
prejudice the parties to the lis. Therefore, the admission of the
G writ petition by itself will not convert the petition of Suresh Kumar
into public interest litigation.

We aware of the essential role which the Bar has to play in the
present day system of justice. No one who is interested in public
H welfare can be happy about the strike which has gone on for over
· P&HBARASSN.v. STATE 925

six weeks and threatens to continue indefinitely in the future. The A
real sufferer is the litigant public. We, therefore, appeal to all the
Associations of the Bar to call off the strike and avoid the hardship
to the litigant public.

In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we have no
option but to allow civil miscellaneous application of the petitioner B
seeking withdrawal of his writ petition. The same is accordingly
dismissed as withdrawn."

This appeal by way of special leave is by the Bar Association through
its Secretary against the Five - Judge Bench judgment of the High Court.
c
We have heard Mr. Rajinder Sachhar, Learned counsel for the
appellant. We have also heard Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Learned Advocate
General for the State of Punjab. It is not necessary for us to go into the
question as to whether the writ petition before the High Court was for
bringing an end to the lawyers strike or to appoint an independent enquiry D
- agency to probe into the disappearance and alleged murder of Kulwant
Singh Advocate and his family. Be that as it may the fact remains that the
Five-Judge Bench of the High Court was seized of the matter wherein the
issues regarding the abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh
Advocate and his family were raised before it. The report of the "Action
Committee" of the Bar Association, statements recorded by the police E
including that of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky and other relevant documents
were before the High Court. The High Court was wholly unjustified in
closing its eyes and ears to the controversy which had shocked the lawyer
fraternity in the Region. For the reasons best known to it, the High Court
became wholly oblivious to the patent facts on the record and failed to F
perform the duty entrusted to it under the Constitution. After giving our
thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are
of the view that the least the High Court could have done in this case was
to have directed an independent investigation/enquiry into the mysterious
and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh Advocate G
and his family.

We are conscious that the investigation having been completed by
the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this Court,
ordinarily, to reopen the investigation. Nevertheless, in the facts and cir-
cumstances of the present case, to do complete justice in the matter and H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A lo inslill confidence in lhe public mind il is necessary, in our view, lo have
fresh invesligation in lhis case through a specialised agency like lhc Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

We, therefore, direct the CBI to take u'p the investigation of the case
F.1.R. No. 10 <lated 8.10.1993 under sections 364/302/201, l.P.C. and 3/4//5
B T.A.D.A. (P) Act, Police Station Rupnagar, District Ropar with immediate
effect. We further direct the Senior Superintended of Police, Ropar and
the Station House Officer, Police Station Rupnagar to assist the CBI in
conducting the investigation. The CBI shall exercise all the powers avail-
able to it under the Criminal Procedure Code and any other provision of
C law. The State of Punjab through its Home Secretary is further directed to
provide all assistance to the CBI in this respect.

We direct the Director, CBI to depute a responsible officer to hold
the investigation as directed by us. This may be do~e within one week from
the receipt of this order. The CBI shall complete the investigation within
D three months from the date of receipt of this order by the Director and
submit its report in accordance with law. The proceedings before the Addi.
Distt. & Sessions Judge, Ropar, shall remain stayed till March 31, 1994.
The appeal is, thus, disposed of.

M.M. Appeals disposed of.