Constitution of India

— Arts. 32, 233 and 235 — PIL — Scope of interference — Fodder Scam cases — Appointment of Special Judge in — Interference by Supreme Court, if warranted — Availability and scrutiny of up-to-date Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of judicial officer(s) concerned — Held (per majority), Supreme Court cannot go into question of appointment of a Special Judge which is exclusively within the domain of the High Court under Arts. 233 and 235 — It is not for Supreme Court to scrutinise correctness of the decision taken by High Court, that too at the instance of third parties — If at all the petitioners had any grievance regarding appointment of any particular judicial officer, proper remedy was to approach the High Court and to bring this fact to notice of the Chief Justice — In the present case, there is no material on record to show that there was any illegality or serious infraction of any procedure or that Respondent 4 (former Chief Minister of Bihar) had any hand in appointment of the CBI (Special Judge) in question — About the conduct and integrity of the Judge concerned, nothing adverse is reported against him, though of course in some years, he has been graded as ``category B'' with regard to his judicial performance — These are all matters considered by the appointing Standing Committee of High Court — Hence prayer of petitioners that said Judge be replaced by another judicial officer cannot be granted — Per Kapadia, J. (dissenting), it is wrong in law for the Court to judge applicant's interest in PIL without looking at the subject-matter of his complaint — In matter of economic scams, be it security transactions or Fodder Scams or Taj Corridor, economic interest of the country is at stake — These cases involve highly complicated questions and therefore posting of the Judge plays a vital role — Choice of candidate by High Court under Arts. 233 and 235 is an administrative function and falls in the domain of public law and, therefore, that choice has to be exercised on some standard, failing which judicial review steps in — If different standards or no standards are applied, it breaks the integrity of the process and brings in discrimination and arbitrariness which violates Art. 14 and therefore attracts judicial review — The concern in present case is hence strictly with the decision-making process by which Special Judge in question was appointed and not with the merits of the allegations — The facts in the present case show that different standards were applied for the appointment of the said Special Judge as compared to two other Judges appointed at the same meeting of the Standing Committee of the High Court, (2006) 6 SCC 613-A

Constitution of India

— Arts. 233, 235 and 14 — Appointment of Special Judges — Proper mode and procedure for — Nature of power exercised by High Court in such appointment — Susceptibility to judicial review (per Kapadia, J.) — Need for integrity of process, uniform application of standards and non-arbitrariness in selection of candidates — Importance of remarks made by inspecting Judge in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of candidates concerned — Choice of candidate by High Court under Arts. 233 and 235 is an administrative function and falls in domain of public law and, therefore, that choice has to be exercised on some standard, failing which judicial review steps in — If different standards or no standards are applied it breaks the integrity of the process and brings in discrimination and arbitrariness which violates Art. 14 and therefore attracts judicial review, (2006) 6 SCC 613-B

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Locus standi/Standing — Criminal matters — Standing to question conduct of criminal proceedings — Fodder Scam cases — Held (per majority: per Balakrishnan, J.), it is for the prosecution to prove its case and for the accused (Respondents 4 and 5) to prove that they did not have disproportionate income as alleged by the prosecution — It is a criminal litigation exclusively between Respondents 4 and 5 and the State — Nobody else has got any right to interfere, especially by way of PIL or else such PIL would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to accused denying them a fair trial, and may even damage prosecution case — Moreover, on facts, though petitioners have alleged a series of irregularities, they are not supported by basic facts having a solid foundation — Held (per majority: per Lakshmanan, J.), PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings — Petitioners are waging a political battle against Respondents 4 and 5 through medium of PIL, which is impermissible, (2006) 6 SCC 613-C

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — Procedure re — Oral pleadings/ misc. petition filed claiming additional relief — Maintainability — Need to amend original writ petition (per Balakrishnan, J.), (2006) 6 SCC 613-D

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Generally — Rationale for PIL — Per Lakshmanan, J., PIL is meant for benefit of the lost and lonely and it is meant for those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access to the court — PILs are not meant to advance political gain and settle scores, (2006) 6 SCC 613-E

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Maintainability — Generally — Test to decide maintainability of PIL — Per Kapadia, J., the test which one has to apply concerns sufficiency of the petitioner's interest and it is necessary to consider subject-mater to which the PIL relates, (2006) 6 SCC 613-F

Administrative Law

Generally

— Per Kapadia, J., true value of a decision lies in its propriety and not in the decision being right or wrong, (2006) 6 SCC 613-G

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Scope of interference — Fodder Scam cases — Appointment/change of Public Prosecutor — Interference by Supreme Court — Held (per majority), appointment of advocates, Public Prosecutors, etc. is the prerogative of the Government in power and the court has no role to play — In the present case, if at all petitioners had any grievance regarding removal of the Public Prosecutor, they should have submitted the same before the Special Judge or the High Court — On facts, contention of petitioners that the prosecutor was purposely changed to give benefit to Respondents 4 and 5 is not correct and is not borne out by the material on record — However, CBI would be at liberty to make use of the services of the earlier prosecutor, (2006) 6 SCC 613-H

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Maintainability — Parties — Prayer for direction to re-engage original Public Prosecutor — Allegations made against Public Prosecutor, etc. of impropriety — Need for impleadment of — Held (per Lakshmanan, J.), since none of these parties were made parties before Supreme Court, allegations against them cannot be looked into at all, (2006) 6 SCC 613-I

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Scope of interference — Income tax matters — Prayer for direction to Revenue to file appeal under S. 260-A, IT Act, 1961 — Maintainability of — Held (per majority), in collateral proceedings like PIL under Art. 32, remedy of writ of mandamus cannot be sought directing the authorities to file appeals against orders of ITAT — In any case, on facts, the petitioners could not point out anything to show that there were serious procedural irregularities on part of Revenue in not filing the appeal or that Respondents 4 and 5, former Chief Ministers of State of Bihar, had exerted any undue influence in taking of the decision not to file appeal — Ministries of Law and Finance, which had been consulted in this regard, had opined that no substantial questions of law arose in the matters concerned to warrant filing of an appeal — Hence there is no reason to give any direction to Revenue to file an appeal — Per Kapadia, J. (dissenting), PIL is not maintainable to probe or enquire into returns of another taxpayer except in special circumstances — When scams take place, accusation of disproportionate assets is required to be looked into — Scope and test for judicial review in such matters, discussed — Concern in the present case is strictly with the decision-making process by which Revenue decided not to file an appeal despite there being substantial questions of law, particularly involving interpretation of Ss. 131, 131(1-A), 273-A and 147/148, IT Act, arising from impugned judgment of ITAT, (2006) 6 SCC 613-J

Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961

— Ss. 252 and 255 — Disproportionate assets cases against powerful political personalities (former Chief Ministers of State of Bihar, R-4 and R-5) — Change of member of ITAT to benefit said persons and other procedural irregularities alleged — Sustainability — Held (per majority), allegations that there were serious irregularities in disposing of cases of R-4 and R-5 before ITAT are not factually correct, (2006) 6 SCC 613-K

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Maintainability — Parties — Prayer for direction to Revenue to file appeal under S. 260-A, IT Act, 1961 — Allegations made against CBDT, members of ITAT, etc. of impropriety — Need for impleadment of such parties — Held (per Lakshmanan, J.), since none of these parties were made parties before Supreme Court, allegations against them cannot be looked into at all, (2006) 6 SCC 613-L

Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961

— S. 260-A — Appeal under — Maintainability — Per Kapadia, J. although the High Court under Section 260-A of the IT Act cannot enquire into the sufficiency of materials or substitute its judgment for that of the Tribunal in regard to facts, nevertheless, if the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is without any basis or based on irrelevant considerations then the High Court is required to interfere under S. 260-A — Also, strong observations having been made by the Tribunal against officers of Revenue without any basis, filing of appeals thereagainst was warranted, (2006) 6 SCC 613-M

Constitution of India

— Arts. 32 and 21 — PIL — Scope of interference — Interference in bail matters — Scope — Fodder Scam cases — Held (per majority), the liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with the established procedure of law under the Constitution, criminal procedure and other cognate statutes — Prayer for cancellation of bail at instance of the petitioners in the present case cannot at all be countenanced since documents on record show that Respondents 4 and 5 (the accused) have never interfered with the conduct of trial or the income tax proceedings, nor does the record show that they were deliberately protracting the trial to take unnecessary adjournments, (2006) 6 SCC 613-N

Constitution of India

— Art. 32 — PIL — Scope of interference — Interference in criminal matters — Monitoring of case — Scope — Fodder Scam cases — Per Lakshmanan, J., once a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court after completion of the investigation, process of monitoring by Supreme Court comes to an end thereafter — It is only the court in which charge-sheet is filed which is to deal with all matters relating to the trial of the accused, (2006) 6 SCC 613-O