Holding

The public interest litigant and interveners lack locus standi; the High Court's suo moto cognizance and show‑cause notice are invalid, but the FIR and the Special Judge’s order authorising the Letter Rogatory remain unaffected.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a public interest litigation filed by H.S. Chowdhary under Article 51A challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation's request to issue a Letter Rogatory to Switzerland in the Bofors scandal. The Court held that the petitioner and intervening parties (Janata Dal, CPI(M), Indian Congress (Socialist) and others) lacked locus standi to contest the criminal proceedings or to seek impleadment. Consequently, the Delhi High Court's suo moto cognizance under CrPC sections 397, 401 and 482 and its show‑cause notice to the CBI and the State were set aside. However, the Court affirmed that the FIR dated 22‑January‑1990 and the Special Judge’s order authorising the Letter Rogatory remain valid and may proceed. Appeals 304‑310 were dismissed, appeal 311 was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a public interest litigant under Article 51A has locus standi to challenge the issuance of a Letter Rogatory and to join criminal proceedings.
Whether the Delhi High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under CrPC sections 397, 401 and extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 to quash the FIR and related proceedings.
Whether the High Court's suo moto cognizance and issuance of a show‑cause notice to the CBI and the State are legally permissible.
Whether third parties may be impleaded or intervened in a criminal case of this nature.
Whether the issuance of the Letter Rogatory to Switzerland can be stayed pending the litigation.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 340, s. 397, s. 401, s. 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 51A
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 161, s. 162, s. 163, s. 164, s. 165A, s. 409, s. 420, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(1)(c), s. 5(1)(d), s. 5(2)

Subjects

public interest litigationlocus standirevisional jurisdictionsuo moto cognizanceletter rogatoryBofors scandalcriminal procedureSection 482 CrPCArticle 51Ainterventionimpleadment

Judgment

THE JANATA DAL & ORS. ETC.
A ·\
v.
H.S. CHOWDHARY & ORS. ETC.

.. AUGUST 27, 1991

B [S,.RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, H:J

. Criminal Trial-Criminal case ~egistered ag~inst specified persons.
-Public interest litigation by third party-Whether maintainable.

Constitution of India, 195~Articlc >I-A-Public interest litiga-
c tion by a lawyer before Special Judge in the. case under Section 120B 'y
'/
read with Sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165A of'IPC Sections 5(2),
5( l)(d), 5(2)/5( l)(c), Preveniion of Corruption Act, pending-Main-
,tainability of.

D. Criminaf Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 397, 401, 482-Revi-
sional jurisdiction of High Court~Whether invokable by public interest
. .
litigation.
'
-

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 397, 401, 482-Suo- · -.,..
moto action-Registering a case under the title _"Court on its motion v.
E State and CBJ"-Legality qf.

On 22.1.90 a First Information Report was registered. under
section 120-B read with sections 161, 162, 163, 164 and 165A of the
Indian Penal Code .read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(d) and 5(2)/5(1)(c) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 409, 420, 468 ~
F and 471 of the Indian Penal COde against 14 accused alleging that they ·
entered into a criminal conspiracy, obtairied illegal gratification in the
form of money from BOFORS, a Swedish company through the agent
firms/companies/persons as motive or reward for such· public servants
who by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise dishonestly using their .
official position as public servants caused pecuniary ·advantage to
G themselves, BOFORS, the agents and others in awarding contracts to.
BO FORS for the supply of guns to the Government of India and in the
transaction also committed the offences of criminal breach of trust, - -..:
cheating of Union oflridia;forgery and using offorged documents etc •
.•
The C.B.I. commenced its investigation during the course of
H which statements of witnesses were recorded and took into their custody

752
JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDHARY 753

various documents and files relating to this BOFORS deal.
A
The C.B.I. moved an application before the Special Judge stating
that the investigation of the case was to be conducted not only in India,
' but also in Switzerland, Sweden and other countries, that an important
aspect of the investigation whlch was to be conducted in Switzerland
was to collect documentary and oral evidence relating to all aspects of B
the accounts in banks in Switzerland to which remittances were made
by M/s. A.B. Bofors from Sweden; that the Director of the C.B.I.
requested the concerned authorities in Switzerland for _freezing/block-
ing certain bank accounts relevant to this case and the Federal Depart-
ment of Justice and Policy, Switzerland moved Judge of Geneva and the
concerned Judge of Zurich; that the relevant accounts in the bank had
been blocked upto 28.2.1990 and that request for judicial assistance c
from Switzerland in this matter, therefore, should be made by
28.2.1990 failing which the Swiss Law obliges the withdrawal of instruc-
tions to block the accounts th!e Swiss authorities would render assistance
in the investigation in Switzerland in accordance with the mutual assis-
tance agreement dated 20.2.1989 only on receipt of a Letter Rogatory D
from the competent judicial authorities in India.

-f The C.B.I. requested the Special Judge to send a Letter Rogatory/
request to Switzerland urgently for getting the necessary assistance in
the investigation to be conducted in Switzerland lest very important and
relevant evidence would remain uncollected and the cause of justice E
would be frustrated.

~ The Special Judge allowed the application of the C.B.I.

Before the new Special Judge who assumed charge of the office
from the previous Special Judge, the appellant in Cr!. A. No. 306/91 p
filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 51-A of the Constitution
of India praying that n~ Rogatory letter be issued on the formal request
of the CBI unless the allegations against named persons were estab-
lished to the satisfaction of the Court; that no request for 'Rogatory or
freezing bank account be made to Swiss Govt: unless the concerned .
persons were noticed and heard on the subject; that the petitioner be G
permitted to join during inquiry in the capacity of public interest liti-
gant; that inquiry u/s. 340, Cr.P.C. be held to determine the alleged
offence committed by various persons and till then all proceedings of
Rogatory be stopped.

The Special Judge dismissed the petition and issued Note of Com- H
pliance and amended Letter Rogatory.
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 3 S.C.R.
The public interest litigant filed a. criminal revision before the
A
High Court. During the hearing of the case before the High Court,
several applications seeking impl•adment/intervention were filed.

Dismissing the revision, the High Court held that the petitioner
has no locus standi to maintain the petition and consequently the ·
B interveners also had no right to seek for impleadment or-intervention
and taking suo moto cognizance of the matter for the reasons assigned
in his order the judge directed issue of show cause notice to the CBI and
the State (Union of India) as to why the proceedings initiated on the
strength of the .FIR dated 22.1.90 pending before the Special Judge he
uot quashed; against which the criminal appeals and the writ petition
were filed in this Court. · r.
c
Crl.A. No. 304/91 is preferred by the Janata Dal against the order
passed by the High Court rejectfng its application filed before the High
Court requesting the Judge to recuse himself from the proceedings.
Crl.A. No. 305/91 is filed by the Janata Dal against the order of the
D High Court rejecting the application for impleadment of the appellant
and other interveners and also issuing sno moto notice to the State and
the CBI.

Crl.A. No. 306/91 is directed by the original petitioner who filed
the public interest litigation before the Special Judge challenging the
E first part of the order of the High Court dated 19.12.90 dismissing his
petition on the ground that he had no locus standi to file the petition.

Crl.A. No~·307/9l is preferred by the.Janata Dal questioning the ..ollllll
correctness of the earlier order passed by the High Court refusing to _,JI
allow the appellant's application for impleanment/intervention ..
F
Crl.A. No. 308/91 has been directed by the Communist Party of
India (Marxist) against the order of the High Court refusing to allow its
application for impleadmen1/intervention.

Crl.A. No. 309/91 is preferred by India Congress (Socialist)
(j against the main order of the High Court dated 19.12.1990 dismissing
its application for impleadment and taking up suo moto cognizance. for
quashing the FIR.

Crl.A. No. JI0/91 is filed by the Union of India canvassing the
legality and correctness of the order dated 5.9.90 passed by the High
H. Court and praying for a direction directing the High Court to clecide the
JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDHARY 755

maintainability of the public interest litigation as a preliminary ques-
A
tion, and for the deletion of the second respondent. The permission for
deletion was granted.

Crl.A. No. 311/91 is filed by the Union of India and the CBI
qnestioning the second part of the order of .the High Court dated
19.12.90 namely taking suo moto cognizance and issuing notice calling B
uplfn the CBI and the State to s.how cause as to why the proceedings
initiated on the strength of the FIR be no quashed.

The appellants in this appeal impleaded the High Court through
its Registrar as a respondent.

W.P. No. 114/91 is filed seeking certain directions relating to c
Bofors matter and for quashing· the later part of the order dated
19.12.90 of the High Court.

Dismissing Crl.A. Nos. 304-310/1991 and the Writ Petition No.
114/91 and allowing Crl.A. No. 311/91, this Court, D

HELD: J. Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply
gone into and examined in a criminal case registered against specified
accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions
and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate
time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of E
public interest litigants. [766H-767 A]

2. The appellant in Crl.A. No. 306/91 has no locus standi to file
the petition under Article 51-A as a public interest litigant, to invoke the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 read with
section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the correct- F
ness, legality or propriety of the order of the Special Judge and to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Informa-
tion Report and all other proceedings arising therefrom on· the plea of
preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. [767C-E]
G
)>' 3. The initiation of the present proceedings hy the public interest
litigant under Article 51.A of the Constitution of India cannot come
within the true meaning and scope of public interest litigation. [767F]

4. The appellantS namely, Janata Dal, Communist Party of Indi~
(Marxist) and Indian Congress (Socialist) equally have no right of seek- H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A ing their impleadment/intervention. For the same reasons, the peti-
tioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 114/91, has no right to file the Writ Petition as
a public interest litigant. [767G]
-~·

5. The suo mow action of the High Court in taking cognizance in
exercise of the powers under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482
of the Code based on the convoluted and strained reasoning and direct-
B ing the office of the High Court to register a case under the title Court
on its motion
. v. State and C:BI
. cannot be sustained. [767H-768A]
6. The directions of the High Court calling upon the CBI and the
State to show cause as to why the prcceedings initiated on the strength
of the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 be not quashed, cannot
be sustained. [768B I
c
7. All the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the First Informa-
tion Report dated 22.1.90 relating to Crime No. RCl(~)/90-ACU-IV on
the flle of the Special Judge including the issuance of the Letter
Rogatory /request as they stand now, remain unaffected and they can be
proceeded with in accordance with law. [768D-E]
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 304 of 1991.
From the Order ·dated 17.12.1990 of the Delhi High Court in·
Criminal Misc. No. 2656 of 1990. ·
E Anand Dev Giri. Solicitor General. Ram Jethmalani, K.G.
Bhagat, P.S. Potty, Prashant Bhushan, Jayant Bhushan, Ms. Deepa
Bhushan, P.K. Dey, Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, M.N. Shroff. A.K.
Khare, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. P.K. Monohar, R. Sasiprabhu, Ms. A. ..11111
Subhashini, A. Subba Rao, Ashok Bhan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, P.N. ~. .
Bhan, R.K. Dixit and A.M. Khanwilkar for the appearing parties.
F Nalla Thampy Thera-petitioner-in-perSon.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
S, RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. A. brief resume of tho facts which
has given rise to the above appeals and Writ Petition would be neces-
sary to appreciate the unsavorous c0ntroversies cre~ted by way of
G public interest litigations, though we have decided to give· only our
conclusions now and the detailed reasons later in order to avoid any
delay in this matter for the reasons, namely, ( 1) in the application for
direction filed by the Union of India through C.B.I. on 12.7 .91 it is
submitted that "the Sw.iss aµthorities would remove the blocking order
H on 31.8.91 and the account holders would withdraw the large funds,
running into millions of dollars .(equivalent to crores of rupees)" and·
JANATA DAL v.. H.S. CHOWDHARY {PAND!AN, J.J 757

prayed that the judgment may be prono.unced by the end of August
1991 lest miscarriage of justice would be caused, and (2) ·that the A
learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Altaf Ahmed appearing on
behalf of the Union of India and CBI on lo.8.91 reaffirmed the above
statement of the Union of India and requested that the .C.B.I. should
be allowed to proceed with the investigation without any interruption or
hindrance so that the investigation may be speeded up thereby mean- B
ing that the wheels of investigation already st.arted moving on, should
be pern)itted to be proceeded with unfettered and untrammelled so
that the valuable evidence may be obtained from the Swiss Bank
through their authorities without further loss of time, otherwise the
account in the Swiss Bank now frozen may be defrozen.
The Central Bureau of Investigation/Delhi Police Establish- c
ment/ Anti Corruption Unit-IV, New Delhi registered the First Infor-
mation Report dated 22.1.90 relating to Crine No. RCl(A)/90-
ACU-IV under Section 12-0-B read with Sections 161, 162, 163, 164
and 165A. of the Indian Penal Coile read with Sections 5(2), S(l)(d)
and 5(2)/S(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (herein
referred to as P.C. Act) read with sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the D
Indian Penal Code against 14 accused of whom 3 are named, they
being (1) Shri Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s A.B. Bofors,
· Sweden (Accused No. 1); (2) Shri Chadha alias Win Shadha, s/6 Shri
Assa Nand, ·President. of M/s Anatronic General Corporation/
Anatronic General Compgnies Ltd., C/4, Main Market, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi (Accused No. 3) and Shri G.P. Hinduja, New Zealand E
House, Hay market, London SW,1 (Accused No. 7). The rest of the 11
accused are stated in general as Directors/employees/holders/benefi-
ciaries of account .code and public servants of the Government of
India. The core of the allegations is that these accused, named and
unnamed, entered into a criminal conspiracy, obtained illegal gratifi-
cation in the form of money from BOFORS, a Swedish company F
through the agent firms/companies/persons as motive or reward for
such public servants who by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise
dishonestly using their official position as· public servants caused
pecuniary advantage to themselves, BOFORS, the agents and others
in awarding contracts to BOFORS for the supply of guns to the
· Government of India and in the transaction also committed the G
offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating· of Union of India,
forgery and using of forged documents etc. It appears that the C.B.I.
has commenced its investigation during the course of which it has
recorded statements of witnesses and took into their custody various .
documents and files relating to this Bofors·deal.
H
While it is so, the C.B.I. mo~ed an application before the Special
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A. Judge, namely, Sari R.C. Jain stating inter alia that the investigation of
the case is to be conducted not only in India, but also in Switzerland,
Sweden and other countries, that an important aspect of the investiga-
tion which is to be conducted in Switzerland is to collect documentary
and oral evidence relating to all aspects of the accounts in banks in
Switzerland to which remittances were made by M/s A.B. Bofors from
B Sweden, that in particular, the authorised signatories and the
beneficiaries of the said accounts have to be traced bY. such investiga-
tion as they are, in fact, the ultimate beneficiaries of the payments
made by M/s A.B. Bofors and that under the procedure.followed by
banks in Switzerland, an authorised signatory can operate an account
for the benefit of certail) other persons regarding whom the authorised
signatory has to submit certain declarations to the concerned bank ·
c and, therefore, it is very essential for the investigation of this case that
the documentary and oral evidence should be collected regarding this'
as well as the other aspects of the bank accounts in Switzerland. In the
said application after referring to the exchange of letters dated 20.2.89
between the Government of India and Switzerland for mutual assis-
D tance agreeing that the Authorities of both the countries shall provide
to each other the widest measure for assistance in the investigation of
criminal matters, it has been stated that the competent authority to ask
for assistance in India and abroad is the Court/Tribunal/Judge or
Magistrate exercising jurisdiction. The Director of the C.B.I. sent a
request dated 23.1.1990 and supplemented by another request dated
E 26.1.1990 to the concerned authorities in Switzerland for freezing/-
blocking certain bank accounts relevant to this case and the ·Federal
Department of Justice and Police, Switzerland moved Shri Parraudin,
Judge of Geneva and the concerned Judge of Zurich who, on being
prima facie convinced of dual criminality and the need for investiga-
tion in Switzerland, froze the relevant bank accounts in this regard on
26.1.1990 as intimated by the Federal Department of Justice and
Police through the Embassy of India in Switzerland and that as per this
information, the relevant accounts in the bank have been blocked upto
28.2.1990 and that request for judicial assistance from Switzerland in
this matter, therefore, should be made by 28.2.1990 failing which the
Swiss Law obliges the withdrawal of instructions to block.the accounts
G and that the Federal Department of Justice and Police at Berne which
corresponds to the Ministries of Law and Home, Government of
India, have assured that the Swiss authorities would render assistance
in the investigation in Switzerland in accordance with the mutual
assistance agreement dated 20.2.1989 only on receipt of a Letter
Rogatory from the competent judicial authorities in India.
H
On the above_ pleadings, the C.B.I. requested the Special Judge
JANATA DAl- v. H.S. CHOWDHARY [PAND!AN, J.l 759

to send a Letter Rogatory/request to Switzerland urgently for getting A
the necessary assistance in the investigation to be conducted in
Switzerland lest very important and relevant evidence would remain
..,._ · uncollected and the cause of justice would be frustrated. The Special
Judge after hearing Shri Arnn Jaitley, the then Additional Solicitor
General of India and Shri K.N. Sharma, Deputy Legal Adviser, CBI
and Shri Baljit Singh, Senior Public Prosecutor by its considered order B
dated 5.2.1990 allowed the application of the C.B.l., the relevant
portion of which reads thus:'

"In the result, the application of the CBI is allowed to the
' extent that a request to conduci the necessary investigation
and to collect necessary evidence which can be collected in
Switzerland and to the extent directed in this order shall be
c
made to the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Con-
federation of Switzerland through the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India subject to the filing of the
requisite/proper undertaking required by the Swiss Law
and assurance forreciprocity." D

The Special Judge also directed certain 'documents to be sent
along with his letter of request, such as the copy of the FIR dated
22. 1. 90, mutual assistance agreement dated 20.2.89 etc. etc. The
Court finally made a note reading thus:
E
"Needless to mention that no observation made in this
order shall tantamount to expression of opinion at any sub-
sequent stage of enquiry or trial."

When the matter stood thus, Shri V.S. Aggarwal on the strength
of the notification issued by the Administrator of the Union Territory F
of Delhi assumed charge as a Special Judge in place of Shri R.C. Jain.
Before Shri Aggarwal, the Special Judge, Shri Harinder Singh
Chowdhary, an Advocate. filed a Public Interest Litigation by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous' Case No. 12/90 under Article 51-A of the
Constitution of India seeking the following prayers which we are
reproducing hereunder: G
)·

"In the premises your petitioners humbly request that in
order to maintain the dignity, prestige and the fair name of
the country and the ideals enshrined in the Constiiution
that no rogatory letter be issued on the formal request of
the CBI ·unless the allegations against named persons are H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19911 3 S.C.R.·

A established to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court:·

It is further requested that n9 request for Rogatory or .Y.
freezing bank account be made to Swiss Govt. unless the
concerned persons are noticed and heard on the subject:
B
It is further requested that the petitioner· may be
permitted to join during inquiry before this Hon'ble Court
in the capacity of public interest litigant.

It is further requested that inquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. be
held to determine the alleged offence committed by various
c persons and till then all proceedings of Rogatory be
_stopped."

The Special Judge, namely, Shri V.S. Aggarwal by his con-
, sidered judgment dated .18.8.1990 dismissed the petition holding "this
request of the learned counsel cannot be accepted." Finally, the
D
learned Judge made the following note:

"Put up on 30.9.1990 for arguments on the question as to
whether any action under Section 340 of the.Code of Crimi~
nal Procedure is to be initiated or not. No opinion on the·
merits_ of the main case is being expressed."
E
The Special Judge then issued (1) Note of Compliance and (2)
Amended letter rogatoryon 22.8.90.

Shri Harinder Singh Chowdhary, the public interest litigant on
being aggrieved by the order dated 18.8,90 of the Special Judge filed a
F
criminal revision before the High Court of Delhi under Sections '397 I
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and raised several questions of
law challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order and
made the following prayers:

(a) to quash the entire FIR No .. RCI (A) 90/ACU-IV
G dated 22. l. 90 and criminal proceedings covered by the
same.

(b) or remand the case to the Special Judge permitting the
petitioner to argue his case before the lower court and also
direct the court below to decide the petition on mc1its.
H
JANATA DAL c.' H.S. CHOWDHARY [PANDIAN. J.[ · ·76]

· (c) direct the court that no request for rogatory letters be. A
made to Swiss Government, till the petitioner is heard on
.his application.

(d) the petitioner may be permitted to join during the
inquiry to determine the question of dual criminality before
the learned Special Judge in the capacity of public interest B
litigant, and also direct the learned Special Judge to decide
the question of dual criminality before issuing the letter
rogatory.

(e) direct the learned Special Judge not to issue any roga-
tory letter on the formal request of the CBI unless the
allegations against named persons is established to the c
satisfaction of the Special Judge by cogent evidence.

This revision petition has been registered as Criminal Miscel-
laneous (Main) No. 1821 of 1990 on the file of the High Court of
Delhi. During the hearing of the above case before the High Court, D
several appli~ations seeking impleadment/intervention were filed in
the proceedings among which one was filed by Mt. Prashant Bhushan,
another by Mr. N: Ram and some more by various political parties.

Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla who heard the Cr!. Misc. (M) No.
1821/90 passed an order dated 3.12.90 directing all the applications for E
intervention to be kept on record ~nd observed. "The interveners will
be heard only if the Court feels the necessity of hearing further argu-
ments after the conclusions of the arguments of ASG appearing for the
GO! and the CBI". Thereafter on 6th and 7th December 1990, Mr.
Justice M.K. Chawla heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the
CBI as well of the Union of India. While it was so, the Janata Dal etc. F
approached this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 2320 of 1990 and this Court on 10. lZ.90 upon being mentioned
and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the following
order: .

"We find on 3.12.90 the learned Judge indicated in his G
order that several applications had been filed by different
people for impleadment/intervention in the proceedings
and the learned Judge observed that these applications
would be heard and if necessary arguments on behalf of the
intervener could be permitted after other counsel are
heard. Grievance has been made that these applications H
762. SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1991] 3 S.C.R.

A have not been formally disposed of by the Court. We are of
the view that the learned Judge should dispose of these
applications by a judicial order before the matter is
reserved for judgment and in case the applications are not +-
accepted, judgment should not be delivered for at least 2
days after such an order on these writ petitions is made to
B
enable them to move this Court."

It appears that in compliance of the above directions of this
Court, Mr. Justice Chawla heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani who appeared
on behalf of Janata Dal ;ind Mr. Prashant Bhushan on 11.12.90. The
learned counsel, Mr. Jethmalani orally requested Justice Chawla to
C recuse himself from the case which request was rejected by the learned .r
Judge. Thereafter, a petition for recusation was filed which was also
dismissed on 17.12.90. After hearing the learned counsel for Mr. H.S.
Chowdhary as well for the interveners, the final order was passed by
Mr. Justice Chawla on 19.12.90, the relevant portion of which reads
thus:
D
"In my opinion, the case of the petitioner does not fall
within the ambit and scope of the law laid by the Supreme
Court in•Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra). So, I hold that the
v'
petitioner has no locus standi to file the present revision I

petition and is thus not maintainable on his behalf. The
E same is hereby dismissed.

As a consequent of the dismissal of the present petition,
holding that the petitioner has no /ocu.s standi, the appli-
cants have no right to be impleaded and their impleadment/
intervention applications are also rejected.
F

So, I suo moto take cognizance while exercising my powers
under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the
Code, and direct the office to register the case under the
title, Court on its own motion v. State and CBI.
G
Consequently, I call upon the CBI and the State to show
cause as to why the proceedings initiated on the filing of
FIR No. RCI (A)/90/ACU-IV dated 22.1.90 pending in the
Court of Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi be not
quashed.
H
JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDHAKY [PANDIAN. J.[ 763

The sum and substance of the above or~er is that in the opinion
A
of Mr. Justice Chawia, the petitioner Sh. Harindcr Singh Chowdhary
+- has no locus standi to maintain the petition and .consequently the
interveners also have no right to seek for impleadment or intervention
and that the learned Judge having held so, took suo moto cognizance
of the matter for the reasons assigned in his order and directed issue of
show cause notice to the CBI and the State (Union of India) as to why B
the proceedings initiated on the strenth of the FIR dated 22.1.90 pend-
ing before the Special Judge be not quashed. Ii was at this stage, all
these criminal appeals and the writ petition have been filed in this
Court. This Court on 20.12.90 in Criminal Appeal No. 304/91 (arising
out of SLP Crl. No. 2476/90 filed by the Janata Dal) passed the follow-
ing order granting interim stay:
c
" ...... In the meantime, the reasons leading to registra-
tion of the suo moto proceedings would not be operative.
There shall be interim stay of proceedings including hear-
ing before the High Court."
D
Jn order to understand the scope of each of the criminal appeals
and the prayer made therein, we are presently giving a brief note of the
appeals and the writ petition.

Criminal Appeal No. 304/9 I
E
This appeal is preferred by the Janata Dal against the order
dated 17.12.90 passed by the High Court rejecting its application Cr!.
(M) No. 2656/90 in Crl. Misc. (M) No. 1821/90 filed before the High
Court requesting the learned Judge to recuse himself from the
proceedings.
f'
Criminal Appeal No. 305/9 I

This appeal is filed by the J anata Dal against the order oI the
High Court dated .. 19.12.90 rejecting the application for impleadment.
of the appellant and other intervences and also issuing suo moto notice
to the State and the CBI. G

Criminal Appeal No. 306/9 I

This appeal is directed by Mr. Harinder Singh Chowdhary (the
original petitioner who filed the public interest litigation before the
Special Judge) challenging the first part of the order of the High Court H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R

dated 19.12.90 dismissing his petition on the ground that he has no
A locus standi to fil_e the petition ..
·t
Criminal Appeal No. 307/91

l'his appeal is preferred by the Janata Dal questioning the cor·
B rectness of the earlier order dated 3.12.90 passed by the High Court
refusing to allow the appellant's application for impleadment/
intervention.

Criminal Appeal No. 308/91

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has directed this appeal
c: against the order of the High Court dated 3.12.90 refusing to allow its
application for impleadment/intervention.

Criminal Appeal No. 309/91

D This appeal is preferred by Indian Congress (Socialist) against
the main order of the High Court dated )9.12.90 dismissing his appli-
cation for impleadment and taking up suo moto cognizance for quash·
ing the FIR. · · · 1

Criminal Appeal _No. 310/91
E
This appeal is filed by the Union of India canvassing the legality
and correctness of the order dated 5.9.90 passed by the High Court
and praying for a direction directing the High Court to decide the
maintainability of the public interest litigation as a preliminary ques·
tion. In that appeal, the learned Solicitor General requested for the
F deletion of the sec.and respondent, Mortin Ardbo,I former President,
M/0 A.B. Bofors, Sweden (who is only a proforma respondent) from
the array of parties and accordingly the permission was granted by this
Court's order dated 13.3.1991.

Criminal Appeal No. 3 i 1/91
G ~
This appeal is filed by the Union of India and the .CBI question-
ing the said second part of the order dated 19. 12. 90, namely taking suo·
moto cognizance and issuing notice calling upon the CBI and the State
to show cause as to why the proceedings initiated on the strength of the
FIR be not quashed. It may be noted that.the appellants in this appeal
H have implcaded the High Court through its Registrar as a respondent.
JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDHARY [PANDIAN, J.J 765

Writ Petition No. f /4f9 I
A
This petition is filed by one Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera seeking
. certain directions relating to Bofors matter and for quashing the later
part of the order dated 19.12.90 of the High Court.

Mr. Anand Dev Giri, the learned Solicitor General assisted by B
Mis Anil Katyar and Ashok Bhan and thereafter the present Addi-
tional Solicitor General Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Mr. A. Subba Rao and Mr.
A.M. Khanwilkar, Advs. appearing on behalf of the Union of India as
well as the CBI; Mr. Ram Jeth,nalani and Mr. Shanti Bhushan, both
learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan appearing in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 304, 305 and 307 of 1991 and Mr. K.G. Bhagat,
the learned senior counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal Nos. 306 and C
305 of 1991 on behalf of Mr. H.S. Chowdhary assisted by Mr. M.N.
Shroff, b.esides a battery of lawyers advanced their respective argu-
ments raising manifold questions of law with reference to the various
provisions of the Constitution of India, Indian Penal Code, Code of'
Criminal Procedure and other Acts and the Memorandum of Under- D
standing etc. for a very considerable length of time totally running for
34 full days and laid stress upon a host of decisions in support of their
respective cases. The introverted and extroverted rhetorical submis-
I''.
sions made by all the learned counsel were punctuated sometimes wi.th
inflammatory remarks, occasionally with discordant and embittered
notes as well as esoteric statements, intermittently with pol.itical over- E
tones, but at the same time with admirable ability exhibiting their
profound knowledge in. criminal law. In fact, each one of them was
trying to outwit and score a march over the other. In this connection, it
~-. may be pointed out that the present Additional Solicitor General, Mr.
Altaf Ahmed has declared unambiguously and perspicuously that he is
in full agreement with the argument .of the fernier Solicitor General, F
Mr. A.O. Giri and that his present articulation serves only as supple-
ment to that of the former Solicitor General. Though the entire sub-
missions made by the former Solicitor General are not being extracted
in this short order, we feel that it would be appropriate to briefly refer
to the core of the submiss!ons of the learned Solicitor General, Mr. ·
A. D. Giri. The learned Solicitor General strenuously urged that Mr. G
H.S. Chowdhary claiming to be a public interest litigant has filed the
original petition before the Special Judge as a proxy of the accused
who are all behind the curtain and who by this perilous proceeding are
trying to evade the dragnet of the investigation and of whom even the
named accused are maintaining stoic silence all through unmindful of
all the proceedings till date and that the CBI though subjected to H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A increasing uncharitable and unwarranted criticism and vilification and
also scurrilous attack, with remarkable resilience is relentlessly
attempting to collect all available materials by unearthing the wider
conspiracy and well knitted illegal transaction within its legally permis- t
sible limits. It is pertinent to mention that Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union
B of India and CBI after Mr: A.O. Giri (the former Solicitor General) has
relinquished his office, reinforced the same arguments and further
pleaded that the matter should be disposed of before the end of
August 1991 for the reasons stated supra so that the CBI may effec-
tively carry on with the investigation. However, we are not at present
giving the details of the points urged except observing that the ques-
tion as to whether the laws are so petrified as to unable to respond to
c the challenges made will be dealt with in detail in our main judgment.
·As mentioned albeit we, in order to avoid further delay in these mat-
ters, are inclined to give only our conclusions, the reasons in support
of which will follow in our detail.ed judgment at a later stage.

D It _is most relevant to note that none of the appellants before this
Court save the Union of India and CBI is connected in any way with
the present criminal proceeding initiated on the strength of the First
Information Report which is now sought to be quashed by Mr. H.S.
Chowdhary. Although in the F.l.R., the names of three accused are
specifically mentioned none of them has been impleaded as a respon-
E dent to these proceedings by anyone of the appellants. Even Mr.
Martin Ardbo, former President of M/s A.B. Bofors, who was
impleaded as a proforma respondent in Criminal· Appeal No. 310/91.
has been given up by the Solicitor General. Therefore, under these
circumstances, one should not lose sight of the significant fact that in
case this Court pronounces its final opinion or conclusions on the
·.·~
f issues other than the general issues raised by the appellants as public
interest litigants, without hearing the really affected person/persons,
such opinion or conclusibns may, in future; in cise the investigation
culminates in filing a final report become detrimental and prejudicial
to \he indicted accused persons who would be totally depnved of cha!·
lenging s·uch opinion or conclusions of this apex Court, even if they
G happen to come in possession of some valuable material to canvass the
correctness of such opinion or conclusions and consequently their
. vested legal right to defend their case .in their own way would be
completely nullified by the verdict now sought to be obtained by these
public interest litigants.

H Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into
JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDHARY [PANDIAN, J.l 767

and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against
specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all A
such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at
the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties
under the garb of public interest litigants.

We, in the above background of the case, after bestowing our B
anxious and painstaking consideration and careful thought td all
aspects of the case and deeply examining the rival contentions of the
. parties both collectively and individually give our conclusions as
follows:

._/ 1. Mr. H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi (a) to file the peti-
' tion under Article 51-A as a puhlic interest litigant praying that C
no letter rogatory/request be issued at the request of the CBI and
he be permitted to join the inquiry before the Special Court
which on 5.2.90 directed issuance of letter rogatory/request to
the Competent Judicial Authorities of the Confederation of
Switzerland; (b) to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High D
Court under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of
the order dated 18.8.'90 of the Special Judge and (c) to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Informa-
tion Report dated 22.1.90 and all other proceedings arising E
therefrom on the plea of preventing the abuse of the process of
the Court.

2. In our considereJ opm1on, the 1mtiat10n of the present
proceedings by Mr. H.S. Chowdhary under Article 51-A of the
Constitution of India cannot come within the true meaning and ·F
scope of public interest litigation.

3. Consequent upon the above conclusions (1) and (2), the ap-
pellants namely, Janata Dal, Communist Party of India
(Marxist) and Indian Congress (Socialist) who are before this
Court equally have no right of seeking their impleadment/ G
intervention. For the same reasons, Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera
also has no right to file the Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 114 of 1991 as
a public interest litigant.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
suo moto action of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla in taking cogni- H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 3 S.C.R.

zance in exercise of the powers under Sections 397 and 401 read
A
with Section 482 of the Code based on the convoluted and
strained reasoning and directing the office of the High Court of
Delhi to register a case under the title Court on its motion v. State
and CBI cannot be sustained.

B 5. Consequent upo_n the above conclusion No. (4), we hold that
the directions of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla calling upon the CBI
and the State to show cause as to why the proceedings initiated
on the strength of the First Information Report dated 22.1. 90 be
not quashed, cannot be sustained.

In the result, we agree with the first part of the Order dated
c 19. 12.90 of Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla holding that Mr. H.S.
Chowdhary and other intervening .parties have no locus standi. We,
however, set aside the second part of tbe impugned order whereby he
has taken suo moto cognizance and issued show cause notice to the
State and CBI and accordingly the show cause notice issued by him is
D quashed.

In view of the above conclusions, all the proceedings initiated in
pursuance of .the First Information Report dated 22.1.90 relating 'to
Crime No. RCl(A)/90-ACU-IV on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi
including the issuance of the letter rogatory/request as they stand now,
E 'remain unaffected and they can be proceeded with in accordance with
law.

In Summation:

Criminal Appeal Nos. 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 and 309 of 1991 are
.. -~
F dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1991 filed by the Union of
India against the order dated 5.9.90 of the High Court is dismissed in
view of the fact that the said order does not survive for consideration
on the passing of the final order dated 19.12.90. The Writ Petition No.
114 of 1991 is also dismissed.

G Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1991 filed by Union of India and
CBI is allowed for the reasons stated above. ~

V.P.R. Crl. A. Nos. 304-310/ 199 land
W.P. No. 114/91 dismissed
Crl.A. No. 311/91 allowed.