Supreme Court of India
RAJESHWAR SINGHversusSUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 812
- Decided
- 9 December 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the contempt petition is maintainable and that the Court has plenary power under Articles 129 and 142 to examine and punish any interference with a court‑monitored investigation, without needing the Attorney General's consent.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a contempt petition filed by Rajeshwar Singh, an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate, who alleged that respondents including Subrata Roy Sahara were intimidating him and attempting to derail the court‑monitored investigation into the 2G Spectrum scam. The petitioner invoked Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, asserting that the Court has inherent power to punish contempt and to ensure that its directions in a monitored investigation are not obstructed. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 are plenary and not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act. It clarified that consent of the Attorney General is not required when the Court itself initiates contempt proceedings in such circumstances. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for interfering with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when the Supreme Court is monitoring a criminal investigation and alleges interference by respondents.
- Whether the alleged intimidation and obstruction constitute contempt of the Supreme Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
- Whether the consent of the Attorney General is a prerequisite for initiating contempt proceedings in this context.
- What is the scope of the Supreme Court's inherent powers under Articles 129 and 142 vis-à-vis statutory provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Legislation cited
- Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003s. Section 8(d)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 129, s. Article 142
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 2(b), s. 2(c)(iii)
- Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. Section 13(1)(d)
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
- Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975s. Rule 12
Subjects
court‑monitored investigationcontempt of courtArticle 129Article 142Supreme Court powersinterference with investigationAttorney General consent2G Spectrum caseSahara Group
Judgment
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 1051
RAJESHWAR SINGH A
v.
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 224 of 2011
IN
Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 B
DECEMBER 9, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.)
Investigation - Court monitored criminal investigation - C
Interference in - Prevention - Responsibility and duty cast
on the court - Held: Is to-see that investigation is carried out
in the right direction and the Officers entrusted with the task
are not intimidated or pressurised by any person, however
high he may be - On facts, the a/legations raised by the D
petitioner in the contempt petition were of very serious nature
- The petitioner invoked Arts. 129 and 142 of the Constitution
to apprise the Supreme Court of the difficulties he faced while
carrying on court monitored investigation - Powers of the
Supreme Court in contempt matters are not confined merely E
to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules
framed thereunder - Constitutional powers are conferred on
the Supreme Court u!Art.129 to examine, whether, there has
been any attempt by anybody to interfere with an investigation
monitored by the Supreme Court - Art. 142 also confers F
powers on the Supreme Court to pass such orders as
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter
pending before it - Any interference, by anybody, to scuttle a
court monitored investigation would amount to interfering with
the administration of justice - Contempt petition filed in the G
case at hand perfectly maintainable - Notice issued to
respondents to show cause why proceedings be not initiated
against them for interfering with the court monitored criminal
investigation - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.129, 142 -
1051 H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(b) and 2(c)(iii) and 12 -
Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme
Court, 1975 - r.12.
Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the present
contempt petition has been preferred, was filed under
8
Article 136 of the Constitution of India praying for a court
monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), in what was described as 2G
Spectrum Scam and also for a direction to investigate the
C role played by A. Raja, the then Union Minister for DoT,
senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and
others. The Supreme Court after taking into consideration
of the report of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
as well as the findings recorded by the CAG agreed for a
court monitored investigation.
D
Petitioner - the Assistant Director of Enforcement
Directorate was invested with the responsibility and duty
of investigating the 2G Spectrum case. He submitted that
he was being personally attacked by the respondents
E through various means so that he does not make further
headway in the investigation.
The question arising for consideration before this
Court was whether there was any attempt on the part of
the respondents to interfere and obstruct the
F investigation conducted by the petitioner, which was
being supervised and monitored by the Supreme Court.
Upholding the maintainability of the contempt
petition, the Court
G
HELD: 1. When a court monitors a criminal
investigation it is the responsibility and duty of the court
to see that the investigation is being carried out in the
right direction and the Officers, who are entrusted with
H the task be not intimidated or pressured by any person,,
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1053
however high he may be. Considerable responsibility and A
duty is cast on the court when it monitors a criminal
investigation. People have trust and confidence when
court monitors a criminal investigation and the court has
to live up to that trust and confidence and any
interference from any quarters to scuttle that B
investigation, has to be sternly dealt with. [Para 6] [1059-
C-D]
A/igarh Municipal Board and Ors. vs~ Ekka Tonga
Mazdoor Union and Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 98; Bharat Steel
Tubes Limited. vs. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77; J.R. C
Parashar, Advocate and Ors. vs. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate
and others (2001) 6 SCC 735: 2001 . (2) Suppl. SCR 239;
Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others (2010) 3 SCC 705: 2010 (2) SCR 1086 and Amicus
Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan and another (2010) 7 SCC 592: D
2010 (8) SCR 723 - cited.
2.lf the allegations raised against the contemnors are
accepted, then one has to conclude prima facie that there
has been an attempt by the respondents to interfere with
E
an investigation undertaken by the petitioner which is
being monitored by this Court. The allegations raised by
the petitioner in the contempt petition are of very serious
nature and, if proved, would amount to interference with
the administration of justice, especially in a court
monitored investigation. In a court monitored F
investigation, if the Officer who is entrusted with the task
of carrying on that investigation is experiencing any
threat or pressure from any. quarters, he is duty bound
to report the same to the court monitoring the
investigation. The Officer should have the freedom to G
carry on his duty entrusted, without any fear or pressure
from any quarters. The petitioner has invoked Article 129
and Article 142 to apprise this Court of the difficulties he
faces while carrying on a court monitored investigation.
[Paras 17, 18] [1071-B, 0-F] H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 3.1, The Courts, if they are to serve the purpose of
administering the justice, must have the power to secure
obedience to the orders passed by it to prevent
interference with its proceedings. Law is well settled that
the powers of the Supreme Court in contempt matters are
B not confined merely to the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Law of
Contempt, as is often said, is only one of the many ways
in which the due process of law is prevented from being
perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of
c justice. This Court has plenary power to punish any
persol"! for contempt of court and for that purpose it may
require any person to 'be present in Court in the manner
it.considers appropriate to the facts of the case. [Para 20]
[1072-B-D]
D 3.2. Constitutional powers are conferred on this Court
under Article 129 of the Constitution of India to examine,
whether, there has been any attempt by anybody to
interfere with an investigation, which is being monitored
by this Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
E under Article 129 of the Constitution is independent of
the Contempt of Courts Act and the powers conferred
under Article 129 of the Constitution cannot be denuded,
restricted or limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
[Para 22] [1073-H; 1074-A-B]
F
3.3. Article 142 of the Constitution also confers
powers on this Court to pass such orders as is necessary
for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending
before it. Article 142 is conceived to meet situations which
cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by
G existing provisions of law. [Paras 23, 24] [1074-C, G]
3.4. The petitioner has inter alia invoked the
jurisdiction and power conferred on this Court under the
above-mentioned constitutional provisions and hence
H the consent of the Attorney General is not necessary.
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1055
Petitioner is only expected to bring to notice of this Court A
the problems he confronts With while carrying on a court
monitored investigation and it is the duty and obligation
of this Court to see, rather than the petitioner, that
nobody puts any pressure or threat on an Officer
entrusted with the duty to investigate a court monitored B
criminal investigation. Any interference, by anybody, to
scuttle a court monitored investigation would amount to
interfering with the administration of justice. Courts,. if
they are to serve the cause of justice, must have the
power to secure obedience to its orders to prevent c
interference with the proceedings and to protect the
•reputation of the legal system, its components and its
personnel, who on its behest carry on a court monitored
investigation. The court is duty bound to protect the
dignity and authority of this Court, at any cost, or else, 0
the entire administration of justice will crutnble and law
and order would be a casualty. [Para 25] [1075-B-E]
Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi VS. State of Gujarat and others (1991) 4 sec 406: 1991
(3) SCR 936 and /. Manila/ Singh vs. Dr. H. Borobabu Singh E
and another (1994) Suppl. (1) sec 718: 1993 (1) SCR 769
- relied on.
Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction
Co.(P) Ltd. and another (1996) 4 SCC 622: 1996 (2) Suppl. F
SCR 295 - referred to.
4. The petition filed under the above mentioned
provisions is perfectly maintainable and this Court has
got a constitutional obligation to examine the truth of the
allegations as to whether the respondents are attempting G
to derail the investigation which is being monitored by
this Court. Therefore, notice· is issued to the respondents
to show cause why proceedings be not initiated against
them for interfering with the court monitored criminal
investigation. [Para 26] [1075-F-G] H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference:
(1970) 3 sec 98 cited Para 2
(2010) 14 sec 11 cited Para 2
B 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 239 cited Para 3
2010 (2) SCR 1086 cited Para 3
2010 (8) SCR 723 cited Para 4
1991 (3) SCR 936 relied on Para 20
c
1993 (1) SCR 769 relied on Para 21
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 2~5 referred to Para 24
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
o (Civil) No. 224 of 2011.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010.
E B. Krishna Prasad for the Petitioner.
Abhinav Mukerji, Gaurav Kejriwali, Dharmendra Kumar
Sinha, Prashant Bhushan, Manoj K. Mishra, Anuvrat Sharma,
Kaushal Yadav for the Respondents.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We may, at the outset,
point out that, at this stage, we are only examining the
maintainability of this contempt petition, on which arguments
G have been advanced by the learned senior counsels on either
side. This contempt petition has been preferred under Article
129, 142 of.the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and Rule
12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the
H Supreme Court, 1975.
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1057
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
2. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing A
for the first respondent, submitted that this contempt petition is
not maintainable since it has been filed IA'.ithout the consent of
the Attorney General of India or other officer mentioned in
Section 15 of the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that
neither the order of this Court dated 06.05.2011 nor the notice B
dated 23.05.2011 gives any indication of the nature of the
criminal contempt to be defended by the respondent. Learned
senior counsel further submitted that even the notice dated
23.05.2011 does not comply with Rule 6 of the Rules to
Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, C
1975. Learned senior counsel also submitted that it does not
mention whether it is a civil contempt or a criminal contempt.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that there is nothing to
show that the first respondent had any knowledge of this Court's
order dated 16.03.2011. Consequently, it cannot be said that D
there was any willful disobedience of that order. Further, such
an allegation is not even raised in the notice. Reliance was
placed on the Judgment of this Court in A/igarh Municipal
Board and others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others
(1970) 3 sec 98. Learned senior counsel submitted that the E
order, on which disobedience is alleged to have been
committed, is not within the knowledge of the respondent and
he is not expected or bound to know the same from the media
or newspapers. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that
the burden to prove the knowledge is not on the alleged F
contemnors, as held by this Court in Bharat Steel Tubes
Limited v. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77.
3. Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the second respondent, submitted that consent of the
Attorney General is a pre-requisite to initiate contempt of court G
proceedings, which is not an empty formality. Learned senior
counsel submitted that second respondent is not a party to any
of the orders passed by this Court and he has not violated any
order passed by this court. Further, it was also pointed out that H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A even the notice is silent in what manner the second respondent
has violated the order passed by this Court. Learned senior
counsel submitted that. even the powers conferred on this Court
to issue suo motu notice is also limited and could be exercised
only in exceptional circumstances. Learned senior counsel
B placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court in J.R.
Parashar, Advocate and others v. Prashant Bhushan,
Advocate and others (2001) 6 SCC 735 and Sahdeo alias
Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3
sec 705.
c
4. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
the third respondent, also refuted all the allegations raised
against the third respondent and submitted that he has nothing
to do with the service tenure in the Enforcement Directorate or
the cases relating to 2G Scam. Learned senior counsel also
0
submitted that the contempt petition itself is not maintainable.
5. Shir K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing
for the C.B.I., submitted that the contempt alleged is not merely
a criminal contempt but also a civil contempt. Learned senior
E counsel referred to Section 2(b) of the Act and submitted that
there has been willful disobedience of the directions of this
Court by the respondents jointly and severally. Learned senior
coun$el also referred to Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act and
submitted that the attempt of the respondents is to interfere and
F obstruct the investigation conducted by the petitioner, which is
being supervised and monitored by this Court. Learned senior
counsel further submitted that this Court under Article 129 read
with Article 142 of the Constitution has the power to see that
the investigation which is being supervised/monitored by this
G Court is not interfered with by any person or from any quarters.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that no sanction from
the Attorney General is necessary when this Court suo motu
initiates· the contempt proceedings in exercise of the powers
conferred under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the
H Constitution, irrespective of the provisions of the Act and the
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1059
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Rules to Regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme A
Court, 1975. Learned senior counsel placed considerable
reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Amicus Curiae v.
Prashant Bhi.Jshan and another (2010) 7 SCC 592.
6. We are, in this case, concerned with the question as to B
whether there has been any attempt on the part of the
respondents to interfere with an investigation which is being
monitored by this Court. When a court monitors a criminal
investigation it is the responsibility and duty of the court to see
that the investigation is being carried out in the right direction c
and the Officers, who are entrusted with the task be not
intimidated or pressured by any person, however high he may
be. Considerable responsibility and duty is cast on the court
when it monitors a criminal investigation. People have trust and
confidence when court monitors a criminal investigation and the 0
court has to live up to that trust and confidence and any
interference from any quarters to scuttle that investigation, has
to be sternly dealt with.
7. Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the present
contempt petition has been preferred, was filed under Article E
136 of the Constitution of India praying for a court monitOred
investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), what
was described as 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a direction
to investigate the role played by A. Raja, the then Union Minister
for DoT, senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and F
others. Before this Court, it was pointed out that the CBI had
lodged a first information report on 21.10.2009 alleging that
during the years 2000-2008 certain officials of the DoT entered
into a criminal conspiracy with certain private companies and
misused their official position in the grant of Unified Access G
Licenses causing wrongful loss to the nation, which was
estimated to be more than Rs.22,000 crores. CBI, following that,
registered a case No.RC-DAl-2009-A-0045(2G Spectrum
Case) on 21.10.2009 under Section 120B IPC, 13(1 )(d) of the
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a former Cabinet
Minister and others.
8. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) also
conducted an inquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central
8 Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and noticed grave
irregularities in the grant of licences. The CVC on 12.10.2009
had forwarded the inquiry report to the Director, CBI to
investigate into the matter to establish the criminal conspiracy
in the allocation of 2G Spectrum under UASL policy of DoT and
c to bring to book all wrongdoers. This Court after taking into
consideration of the report of the eve as well as the findings
recorded by the CAG agreed for a court monitored investigation
and passed the following order:
"We are, prima facie, satisfied that the allegations
D contained in the writ petition and the affidavits filed before
this Court, which are supported not only by the documents
produced by them, but also the report of the Central
Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the
Director, CBI on 12.10.2009 and the findings recorded by
E the CAG in the Performance Audit Report, need a
thorough and impartial investigation. However, at this
stage, we do not consider it necessary to appoint a
Special Team to investigate what the appellants have
described as 2G Spectrum Scam because the
F Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid down
in Vineet Narain's case, agreed for a Court monitored
investigation."
9. This Court, with a view to ensure a comprehensive and
G co-ordinated investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement
Directorate, vide its order dated 16.12.2010 gave the following
directions:
(i) The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into
various issues high-lighted in the report of the
H
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1061
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Central Vigilance Commission, which was A
forwarded to the director, CBI vide letter dated
12.10.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have
prima facie found serious irregularities in the grant
of licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are
said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of the B
terms and conditions of licences and huge loss to
the public exchequer running into several thousand
crores. The CBI should also probe how licences
were granted to large number of ineligible·
applicants and who was responsible for the same c
and why the TRAI and the DoT did not take action
against those licensees who sold their stake/
equities for many thousand crotes and also against
those who failed to fulfill rollout obligations and
· comply with other conditions of licence.
D
(ii) The CBI shall conduct the investigation without
being influenced by any functionary, agency or
instrumentality of the State and irrespective of the
position, rank or status of the person to be
investigated/probed. E
(iii) The CBI shall, if it has already not registered first
information report in the context of the alleged
irregularities committed in the grant of licences
from 2001 to 2006-2007, now register a case and F
conduct thorough investigation with particular
emphasis on the loss caused to the public
exchequer and corresponding gain to the
licensees/service providers and also on the issue
of allowing use of dual/alternate technology by G
some service providers even before the decision
was made public vide press release dated
19.10.2007.
(iv) The CBI shall also make investigation into the
H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A allegation of grant of huge loans by the public sector
and other banks to some of the companies which
have succeeded in obtaining licences in 2008 and
find out whether the officers of the DoT were
signatories to the loan agreement executed by the
B private companies and if so, why and with whose
permission they did so.
(v) The Directorate of Enforcement/ concerned
agencies of the Income Tax Department shall
continue their investigation without any hindrance or
c interference by any one.
(vi) Both the agencies, i.e. the CBI and the Directorate
of Enforcement shall share information with each
other and ensure that the investigation is not
D hampered in any manner whatsoever.
(vii) The Director General, Income Tax (Investigation)
shall, after completion of analysis of the transcripts
of the recording made pursuant to the approval
E accorded by the Home Secretary, Government of
India, hand over the same to CBI to facilitate further
investigation into the FIR already registered or
which may be registered hereinafter."
F 10. CBI and the Enforcement Directorate then used to
apprise this Court of the various stages of the investigation and
seek directions and this Court, on 10.02.2011, passed an order
stating that since this Court is monitoring the investigation of
2G Spectrum Scam no court shall pass any order which may,
G in any manner, impede the investigation being· carried out by
the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement. Learned Attorney
General also informed this Court that he had received a
communication on 16.03.2011 from the Delhi High Court of
nominating Shri O.P. Saini, an officer of the Delhi Higher
H Judicial Service, as the Special Judge to take up the trial of
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1063
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
cases relating to what has been described as 2G Scam. The A
Court was also informed that two separate notifications would
be issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 3(1)
the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of the Special Court
to exclusively try the offences relating to 2G Scam and other B
related offences. Following that, two notifications were
published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary, on the 28th
March, 2011.
11. Noticing the above submissions a detailed order was c
passed by this Court on 16.03.2011, which inter alia reads as
follows:
"While adjourning the case, we make it clear that no one
including the newspapers shall interfere with the functioning
of the C.B.I. team and the officers of the Enforcement D
DirectOrate who are investigating what has been described
as 2G Scam and the Court will take serious cognizance
of any endeavour made by any person or group of persons
in this regard."
E
12. Petitioner - the Assistant Director of Enforcement
Directorate who is invested with the responsibility and duty of
investigating the 2G Spectrum case; submits that, during the
course of investigation, he could come across various materials,
having considerable bearing on the investigation relating to 2G F
Scam. The petitioner, in this contempt petition, has stated as
follows:
"Facts came to the notice of the Directorate of
Enforcement that one Mis Sahara India Investment
Corporation, a Sahara group company, now known as G
Mis Sahara Prime City Ltd., during the course of
investigation it is revealed that the said company had
invested Rs.14.00 Crores on 28.09.2007 on which date
Mis S-Tel Ltd., had applied for 16 more licences. This
investment has been purportedly made for purchase of H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A shares of M/s S-Tel. Surprisingly, this investment has been
sold back on 15.01.2009 for an amount of Rs.16.80
Crores. In view of these financial details being revealed
during the course of investigation and considering the fact
that this entire 2G Spectrum case, there has been several
B ways of transactions, which was deemed appropriate to
investigate this aspect of the matter also and accordingly
on 02.02.2011, a summon had been issued to the
Managing Director of the said Company requiring his
personal appearance on 17 .02.2011. The Managing
c Director is Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, who chose not to
appear, but, to apply for an adjournment for four weeks.
Taking into consideration said request a fresh summon
was issued on 30.03.2011 requiring his appearance on
08.04.2011. He is respondent No.1, above named, and he
chose not to appear even on 08.04.2011' and has, thus,
D
shown non cooperative attitude."
13. The petitioner, with reference to ·sahara India
Commercial Corporation Limited, has stated as follows:
E "That there is yet another Sahara Group company by the
name Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited
based in Mumbai, which has purportedly paid Rs.9.50
Crores on 06.07.2007 to one Mis Sky City Foundation Pvt.
Ltd., as an advance. This Sky City Foundation has in turn
F invested the very same money with Mis S-Tel, just before
the date of application of M/s S-Tel made to the DoT for
issuance of Universal Access Service (UAS) Licence on
09.07.2007.
That in view of the said fact, it was deemed
G appropriate to summon the concerned officials of the said
Co. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited on
07.04.2011 and for the purpose the summon was issued
on 30.03.2011."
H 14. The petitioner, referring to the second Status Report
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1065
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
covering the period from 27.11.2010 to 08.02.2011, has A
referred to the involvement of Mis Sahara India Investment Ltd.,
now known as M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd. and stated as follows:
"The said status report also mentions other details about
the acquisition of other two companies by a group in March, 8
April, 2009 in respect of which letters for inquiry have been
sent to Mauritius. It is deemed expedient not to disclose
further details in this application on account of the fact that
the Directorate of Enforcement is investigating into the
money trail and if further details are disclosed in the C
application the same is likely to be prejudicial to the interest
of investigation. However, the applicant undertakes to
disclose such other facts including the status report in a
sealed cover to this Hon'ble Court, if so directed.
It is further respectfully submitted that in the third D
Status Report, covering the period from 09.02.2011 to
17.03.2011 also mentions about a person being issued
summon. The said fact is mentioned on page 20 in
paragraph 20-D. Details therein clearly show that M/s S-
Tel Pvt. Ltd. had arranged for certain funds from various E
groups to pay licence fee. On Page 21 of the said Status
Report, it is mentioned that further investigation in respect
of the companies named therein just above paragraph 20-
E is in progress. Similarly in the fifth Status Report, filed
on 26.04.2011, there is a mention in paragraph 6-B F
regarding sale of holding of a company and funding of M/
s S-Tel by two groups mentioned therein. The fact of
Sahara India Commercial Corporation having sought
adjournment is also mentioned in the said Status Report."
G
15. The petitioner, referring to the Sahara Group of
Companies, stated as under:
"It is further submitted that yet another reference dated
11.06.2010 as forwarded by the Head Quarter of the Office
of the Directorate of Enforcement has been received from H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A an Intelligence Unit of India, which interalia alleges that Sh.
Subrata Roy, respondent No. 1 of MIS. Sahara Group of
Companies alongwith others have deposited an amount
of Rs.150 Crores which has been rotated through a maze
of financial transactions between accounts of MIS. Sahara
B Corporation and MIS. Sahara India within the same
branch/bank. On basis of said input, the Directorate of
Enforcement had initiated discreet enquiries against Mis.
Sahara Corporation and Mis. Sahara India for alleged
violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
c This investigation is handled by the present applicant, who
made several enquiries with number of banks by issuing
directives on 23.07.2010 and 28.07.2010. This
investigation involves over 100 banks and accounts and
large financial transactions are being investigated. The
modus operandi that was adopted is resorting to cash
D
deposits of huge amounts on different dates in different
accounts and at remote far off places of the country and
withdrawal immediately by cheques which would show that
there is a clear attempt prima facie to legitimize the
amounts. Details from four banks have been received
E which show cash deposits of more than Rs.24 Crores, so
far.
That further investigation have revealed that Mis.
Sahara India is operating more than 334 bank accounts
F and details thereof has been sought from all those banks
which are yet to be scrutinized. This matter is also referred
to the Income Tax Department on 29.09.2010 for further
necessary action at their end.
That during the course of enquiries a further
G information is received from a reliable sources that a
company having registered office opposite Domestic
Airport in Mumbai, which is a group company of Sahara
Group, has given a loan a huge amounts in pounds to a
company in Mauritius, which is purported to be a short term
H
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1067
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
loan and investment in hospitality sector. This amount was A
transferred under an automatic route through a bank in
Mumbai and this amount is transferred to a foreign country
for acquisition of a property of a hotel company whose
shares were pledged with the Bank and which money has
been utilized to repay the outstanding of the bank. B
Summons are issued to the concerned bankers of the said
companies for 09.05.2011 for appearance of these
bankers for recording of their statements. This entire
matter is also referred to by the appli~nt to the Reserve
Bank· of India on 22.03.2011 and 11.04.2011 and c
response to some queries are yet to be received and the
investigation in the said matter is under progress.
That there is yet another investigation which is
popularly referred is as Madhu Koda Scam case in respect
of which the Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand D
has issued directions, directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation to conduct an investigation as regards the
predicate offence and directed the Directorate of
Enforcement to investigate offence under Foreign
Exchange Management Act and Prevention of Money E
Laundering Act, 2002. These investigations are also under
progress and are conducted by the applicant as an
Investigating Officer. In this investigation properties worth
Rs.125 Crores have already been attached in exercise of
powers under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and F
during the course of investigation it is suspected that large
amount of funds which are tainted money which are
proceeds of crime have been invested in Sahara Group
companies by those accused persons with a· view to
project them as untainted money. The investigation of this G
is also being carried.· ·
/
It is submitted that all these investigations
undertaken by the petitioner applicant, before your lordship,
has irked the Sahara Group and more particularly the
respondents." H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 16. Petitioner submits that he is being personally attacked
by the respondents through various means so that he will not
make further headway in the investigation. The petitioner has
explained in Paras 5 to 12 of the petition, the manner in which
he is being intimidated, which read as follows:
B
"5. That when investigations have been initiated in the 2G
Spectrum case against them, the respondents have
conspired to interfere with the original 2G Spectrum case
investigations so as to derail the same, the details whereof
are stated hereinafter.
c
It may not be out of place to mention that M/s.
Sahara Airlines, which is now taken over by Jet Airways
and operated under the banner of Jetlite are also facing
investigations for violation under FERA, 1973 and an
D opportunity show cause notice was issued prior to
launching prosecution which has been made subject
matter of a challenge before the High Court at Lucknow.
That by an interim order dated 21.05.2002, further
proceedings have been stayed and on the said fact having
E
come to my notice while I was Assistant Director lncharge
of Lucknow Zone, I had filed application to get the interim
order vacated.
6. It is submitted that on 02.05.2011 having come to know
F · . from reliable sources that some business house / liaison
persons together with disgruntled government officials had
initiated a campaign of making false anonymous and
pseudonymous complaints to various agencies and started
spreading rumours, the applicant deemed appropriate to
G send the latest immovable properties return. This was
necessitated that in view of the fact that in April, 2011, a
property which was purchased from Lucknow Development
Authority by taking a loan, was disposed off and the
proceeds of the disposal were received as refund being
H
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1069
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
given by the Lucknow Development Authority, a A
government body.
That this was forwarded to the Additional Director
thorough prdper channel and it is reliably learnt that the
same is in the process being sent even to the Director, B
Central Bureau of Investigation, on my request. .
7. It is submitted that on 05.05.2011, there has been an
attempt to intimidate the applicant after hearing of the 2G
Spectrum case was concluded before this Hon'ble Court.
The applicant has received a letter purported to be sent C
by the respondent No.3, Shr1 Subodh Jain, which contain
wielded threat to start a campaign against the applicant
with a view to intimidate and, thus, interfered in the ongoing
investigations against the Sahara Group companies in the
2G Spectrum case. D
. On 05.05.2011, a copy of the said letter has been
delivered by hand at the office of the applicant and at
15.43, the same is received on FAX of the Dy. Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, copies thereof are annexed
E
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-F (COLLY).
8. The response to the queries raised is being produced
in a sealed cover together with documents supporting the
same for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. The only purpose
of producing it in a sealed cover is to see such future F
intimidation to torpedo the ongoing investigation does not
take place. The applicant respectively declares before this
Hon'ble Court that he is ready and willing to file an affidavit
of these disclosures before this Hon'ble Court.
G
9. The petitioner applicant respectfully submit that it is,
thus, clear that only with a view to dissuade the petitioner,
who is the Investigating Officer, to carry the investigation ·
in the right direction against the Sahara Group, the
respondents, and more particularly in the 2G ·Spectrum
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A case, ·that the respondents have attempted to intimidate
which is nothing sort of contempt of this Hon'ble Court
since not only the investigation is monitored by this Hon'ble
Court, but, this Hon'ble Court has given directions as
contained in their lordship's judgment dated 16.12.201 O
B and 16.03.2011, which are being carried out by the
applicant in the matter of investigation of 2G Spectrum
case.
10. It is respectfully submitted that this attempt by the
respondents to intimidate the applicant, who is the
c Investigating Officer is clearly an attempt to interfere or an
attempt which tends to interfere with or obstruct or tends
to obstruct the administration of justice and is thus a
criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971. It is submitted that this is an
D attack on the investigating officer carrying out the directions
of this Hon'ble Court in his way to obstruct the course of
justice by preventing the petitioner, who is the Investigating
Officer, from carrying out the directions of this Hon'ble
Court.
E
11. That this conduct is intended to impeach, embarrass
and obstruct the applicant in the discharge of his duties
and carrying out directions of this Hon'ble Court. It is
respectfully submitted that it is expected out of the
F applicant that he is able to conduct the investigation free
from any outside interference and the present letter dated
05.05.2011 intending to cause embarrassment to the
applicant and detract him from the ongoing investigation
is clearly an act of interference that would jeopardize the
ongoing investigation and thus hamper the petitioner from
G
carrying out the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
12. That this communication is intended to influence the
petitioner publically and, thus, target him with an intention
that the petitioner may not carry on the ongoing 2G
H
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1071
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Spectrum investigation as well as other investigations A
against the Sahara Group."
17. We are of the view that if the allegations raised against
the contemnors are accepted, then we have to conclude prima
facie that there has been an attempt by the respondents to B
interfere with an investigation undertaken by the petitioner
which is being monitored by this Court. The petitioner has
stated that he has also filed a complaint of violation under the
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) to the
extent of Rs.4600 Crores against five more companies C
including M/s S-Tel and he is in the process of filing five
complaints involving an amount of Rs.1800 Crores under the
FEMA, 1999 and is also in the process of issuing an order of
attachment as contemplated under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
D
18. We may point out that the allegations raised by the
petitioner in the contempt petition are of very serious nature
and, if proved, would amount to interference with the
administration of justice, especially in a court monitored
investigation. In a court monitored investigation, if the Officer E
who is entrusted with the task of carrying on that investigation
is experiencing any threat or pressure from any quarters, he is
duty bound to report the same to the court monitoring the
investigation. The Officer should have the freedom to carry on
his duty entrusted, without any fear or pressure from any F
quarters. The petitioner has invoked Article 129 and Article 142
to apprise this Court of the diffic~lties he faces while carrying
on a court monitored investigation.
19. Let us examine the extent of the power conferred on
this Court under ArtiCle 129 of the Constitution, which reads as G
follows:
"Article 129. Supreme Court to be a court of record -
The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A have all the powers of such a court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself."
20. We are of the view that the Courts, if they are to serve
the purpose of administering the justice, must have the power
to secure obedience to the orders passed by it to prevent
8
interference with its proceedings. Law is well settled that the
powers of the Supreme Court in contempt matters are not
confined merely to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. Law of Contempt, as is often
said, is only one of the many ways in which the due process of
C law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to
further the cause of justice. This Court has plenary power to
punish any person for contempt of court and for that purpose it
may require any person to be present in Court in the manner it
considers appropriate to the facts of the case. This Court in
D Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v.
State of Gujarat and others (1991) 4 sec 406, examined at
depth the scope of Article 129 of the Constitution and stated
as follows:
E ''The power of the Supreme Court and the High Court
being the Courts of Record as embodied under Articles
129 and 215 respectively cannot be restricted and
trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Their inherent
F power is elastic, unfettered and not subjected to any limit.
The· power conferred upon the Supreme Court and the
High Court, being Courts of Record under Articles 129 and
215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power
and the jurisdiction vested is a special one not derived
from any other statute but derived only from Articles 129
G
and 215 of the Constitution of India and therefore the
constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged by
any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be
controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules. The caution
H
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1073
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
that has to be observed in exercising this inherent power A
by summary procedure is that the power should be used
sparingly, that the procedure to be followed should be fair
and that the contemnor should be made aware of the
charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself.... Entry 77 of List 1, Schedule 7 read with B
Article 246 confers power on the Parliament to enact law
with respect to the Constitution, organization, jurisdiction
and powers of the Supreme Court including :the contempt
of the Supreme Court. The Parliament is thus competent
to enact a law relating to the powers of Supreme Court with C
regard to 'contempt of itself such a law may prescribe
procedure to be followed and it may also prescribe the
maximum punishment which could be awarded and it may
provide for appeal and for othe.r matters. i3ut the Central
Legislature has no legislative competence to abridge or
extinguish the jurisdiction or power conferred on the 0
Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution.
"
21. This Court, again, in /. Manila/ Singh v. Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh and another (1994) Suppl. (1) sec 718 has E
delineated the plenary powers of this Court and stated that the
power conferred on this Court under Article 129 is a
constitutional power which cannot be circumscribed or
delineated either by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Rules
or even the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the F
Supreme Court, 1975, framed in exercise of powers under
Section 23 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, read with
Article 145 of the Constitution of India.
22. We are of the view that, assuming, there has not been
any proper compliance of the provis1ons of the Contempt of G
Courts Act, 1971, as contended by the learned senior counsels
for the respondents, that would not deter or take away the
constitutional powers conferred on this Court under Article 129
of the Constitution of India to examine, whether, there has been
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A any attempt by anybody to interfere with an investigation, which
is being monitored by this Court. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution is
independent of the Contempt of Courts Act and the powers
conferred under Article 129 of the Constitution cannot be
8 denuded, restricted or limited by the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
23. Article 142 of the Constitution also confers powers on
this Court to pass such orders as is necessary for doing
complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The
C said Article 142 reads as under:
"Article 142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of
Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. ( 1 )
The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may
D pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for
doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending
before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such
manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made
by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made,
E
in such manner as the President may by order prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf
by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the
whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to
F make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance
of any person, the discovery or production of any
documents, or the investigation or punishment of any
contempt of itself."
G 24. Article 142 is conceived to meet situations which
cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by existing
provisions of law. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction Co.(P) Ltd. and another (1996) 4 SCC 622, this
Court has held that the very fact that the power is conferred only
H upon the Supreme Court, and on no one else, is itself an
RAJESHWAR SINGH v. SUBRATA ROY SAHARA 1075
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
assurance that it will be used with due restraint and A
circumspection; keeping in view the ultimate object of doing
complete justice between parties and the Court's power to do
complete justice is not confined by any statutory provision.
25. We may indicate that the petitioner has inter alia 0
invoked the jurisdiction and power conferred on this Court under
the above-mentioned constitutional provisions and hence the
consent of the Attorney General is not necessary. Petitioner is
only expected to bring to notice of this Court the problems he
confronts with while carrying on a court monitored investigation C
and it is the duty and obligation of this Court to see, rather than
the petitioner, that nobody puts any pressure or threat on an
Officer entrusted with the duty to investigate a court monitored
criminal investigation. Any interference, by anybody, to scuttle
a court monitored investigation would amount to interfering with
the administration of justice. Courts, if they are to serve the D
cause of justice, must have the power to secure obedience to
its orders to prevent interference with the proceedings and to
protect the reputation of the legal system, its components and
its personnel, who on its behest carry on a court monitored
investigation. The court is duty bound to protect the dignity and E
authority of this Court, at any cost, or else, the entire
administration of justice will crumble and law and order would
be a casualty.
26. We are, therefore, of the view that the petition filed F
under the above mentioned provisions is perfectly maintainable
and this Court has got a constitutional obligation to examine
the truth of the allegations as to whether the respondents are
attempting to derail the investigation which is being monitored
by this Court. We, therefore, issue notice to the respondents G
to show cause why proceedings be not initiated against them
for interfering with the court monitored criminal investigation.
B.B.B. Contempt Petition held maintainable.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "court‑monitored investigation"Sign in to search