VINEET NARAIN VS UNION OF INDIA, (1996) 2 SCC 199

Advertisements

Facts of the case:

• Ashfak hussain lone alleged he is a member of the hizabulmujhaideen terrorist organization he is arrested in Delhi. In interrogation, it was found that some people are helping in funding the terrorist organization.
• CBI raided Surendra Kumar Jain’s house and his businesses. In that CBI seized two dairies and those dairies consisted information regarding huge payments made to various Politicians and only initials of the Politian were mentioned in those dairies. by seeing those initials we can know that those were high ranking Politicians from different political parties.
• CBI suspected Jain is giving funding to Ashfak hussain terrorists so this scandal is treated as a Hawala scandal.
• CBI was criticized for not doing proper investigation because people who were involved in the present case were extremely influential in Indian Government and Indian Politics.
• And there is no action taken against CBI on Surendra Kumar Jain and no proper investigation was done.
• Vineet Narain a journalist, filed a writ petition on 4th October and it was directed as Public Interest Litigation under Article 32.
• The purpose of filing this case is to direct proper investigation by CBI and future working of CBI and its Autonomy.

Issues of the case:

• CBI is not independent and subject to political intervention
• CBI was not given sufficient power to investigate the case

Contentions by petitioner:

• Counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that government agencies like CBI and Revenue authorities are failing to perform their duties and legal obligations.
• And argued that in the present case, CBI failed to Investigate properly and the main reason behind this is the involvement of extremely influential persons and politicians.
• And argued that Nexus between the terrorists, politicians and bureaucrats shall be a huge threat to the integrity, security, and economy of India.
• And argued that investigation must be done in accordance with the rule of law and that appointment of independent police officers must be done for proper investigation in the present case.

Contentions by respondent:

• Also argued that petitioner is not affected directly by corruption so he is not having any right to bring the case
• UOI argued that CBI is an independent and autonomous agency there shall not any interference from government side.
• UOI argued without any sufficient evidence court is not having any authority to order investigation on Politian’s.
• UOI argued that investigation was done properly therefore court should not interfere in the present case.

Judgment:

• Supreme court in the present case referred “the Vishaka and others vs the State of Rajasthan” case and made some guidelines and said whenever there is inaction by the appropriate authority then the judiciary must take appropriate action.
• Central Vigilance Committee has given statutory status in 1997.
• The Central Vigilance Committee selection process is done by the committee of the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and Leader Of the Opposition.
• Central Vigilance Committee shall be responsible for the efficient function of CBI.
• Central Vigilance Committee shall be considered an independent body without any political intervention.
• Appointment of Director of CBI by a committee of Central Vigilance Commissioner and Home Secretary and Secretary Personnel.
• The tenure of the CBI Director is a minimum period of 2 years.
• Transfer of CBI Director is done in extraordinary situations only and with the permission of the appointment committee.
• Full freedom shall be given to the Director of CBI.
• Supreme Court struck down the single directive i.e prior sanction of designated authority this was reinstated in 2003 but again struck down in 2014.

Importance of this case:

• Vineet Narain’s case is a step towards accountability in public life.
• The vacuum between the executive and legislature on the issue of corruption is successfully tackled by the Judiciary.
• Public awareness about the issue of corruption
• It is an inspiring case for people to engage in the judicial process through PIL
• Strengthening of Central Vigilance Committee
• For high-profile cases, a court-monitored investigation shall be done for conducting the investigation properly.

Impact of the judgment:

•  Supreme Court held CBI to be independent and investigate corruption cases of public officials.
• In this Hawala case media plays a crucial role in bringing the Hawala scam to light. This shows the significance of a free and independent press.
• Increased public awareness about corruption.
• Great judicial activism in promoting social and political reforms.

This is written by Smrithin Maturi of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin