AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2008 Purshottam D. Barde, Occupation Business, R/o. F-1, Awanti Nagar, Rane Naka, Solapur, District Solapur. ) ) ) ) ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ) ) ) 1A Union of India, through Department of Home, North Block, Raj-Path, New Delhi. ) ) ) 2. Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra, having office at Police Mukhayalaya, Old Vidhan Bhavan, Colaba, Mumbai. ) ) ) ) ) 3. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, having office Near Crawford Market, Mumbai. ) ) ) 4. Narayan Tatu Rane, Ex- Revenue Minister, Mumbai. ) ) ... Respondents. Mr. DV. Sutar for the petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor for respondents 1, 2 and 3. AJN 2 Ms. Usha V. Kejariwal for respondent 1A. Mr. Rafiq Dada, senior counsel with Mr. G.S. Godbole for respondent 4. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 30TH JULY, 2010. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED: 9TH AUGUST, 2010. JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. The petitioner claims to be a social activist and Chief of Shivsena, District Solapur. The 1st respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 2nd respondent is the Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra. The 3rd respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. The 4th respondent is Narayan Tatu Rane, the Revenue Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. As per order of this court, the petitioner has added the Union of India through Department of Home, New Delhi as respondent No.1A. AJN 3 2. The main prayers of the petitioner in this petition are as under : “(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or order direct Respondent no.1 to 3 to investigate the statements made by Respondent no.4 in the press conference held on 6.12.2008 and the same is published in news article in various news papers annexed to this petition. (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent no.4 to disclose the names of such political leader who have aided and abetted terrorists in India as stated in the press conference held on 6.12.2008 with further direction to Respondent no.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against those political leader. (c) In case if it is found that the statements made by Respondent No.4 to be false and/or Respondent no.4 is not having any information as such then this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent no.1 to 3 to take appropriate action for giving false information.” 3. It may be noted here that learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing only prayer (a) of the petition. AJN 4 4. The petition centers around a statement made by the 4th respondent after the terrorist attack on Mumbai on 26/11/2008, which was reported by several newspapers. The 4th respondent stated that certain leaders had provided financial and logistic support to the Pakistani Terrorists who created mayhem in Mumbai. The 4th respondent further stated that he was making a responsible statement and that he will reveal the details at an appropriate time. 5. On 29/8/2009, a Division Bench of this court presided over by Justice Bilal Nazki perused the statement of the 4th respondent recorded by the police and issued notice to him. Accordingly, the 4th respondent filed an affidavit, in which he inter alia, stated that the present petition is filed for gaining political mileage because of political enmity between him and the Shivsena. The 4th respondent stated that two similar petitions were filed in this court and were disposed of by the Division Bench presided over by the AJN 5 then Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar on 18/12/2008. The 4th respondent further stated in the affidavit that the police have recorded his statement in which he has pointed out that he has made the statement on the basis of the Vohra Committee Report. 6. We have heard, at some length, Mr. Sutar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pol, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, Ms. Kejariwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1A and Mr. Dada, learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent. We have been taken through order dated 18/12/2008 passed by Division Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar in Public Interest Litigation No.14 of 2008 and Public Interest Litigation No.16 of 2008. In Public Interest Litigation No.14 of 2008, the 4th respondent was a party. A direction was sought to him to file a detailed affidavit in this court disclosing the names of the leaders and the details of the financial and logistic support provided by them to the Pakistani Terrorists involved in AJN 6 the terror attacks dated 26/11/2008. It was also prayed that the 4th respondent be summoned in order to question him about his statement. It was further prayed that the 4th respondent may be subjected to brain mapping and Narco Analysis test. In Public Interest Litigation No.16 of 2008 also, the 4th respondent was a party. A direction was sought in that petition that he may be directed to supply information in respect of involvement of political leaders in the terrorist attacks and terrorist activities in Mumbai and the State, as per his statement made before the Print and Electronic Media on 6/12/2008 and 7/12/2008 respectively. It was further prayed that action may be taken against the erring political leaders, who are involved in the terrorist attack in Mumbai and action may also be taken against the 4th respondent, if he has given false information in respect of involvement of political leaders in the terrorist attack in Mumbai. It was further prayed that a direction be issued to take action against the 4th respondent for his lapses in not informing the Government about the information which he had in AJN 7 respect of the involvement of political leaders in the terrorist attack. 7. Objection was raised before the Division Bench as regards the maintainability of those petitions as public interest litigation. The Division Bench felt that it was not necessary to go into that aspect. The Division Bench, inter alia, observed that the petitioners wanted the Investigating Agency to issue summons to the 4th respondent in terms of Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code and record his statement. The Division Bench observed that the courts are not expected to interfere or control the investigation unless the investigation is unfair, unjust and improper and is influenced by external factors. The Division Bench observed that the petitioners had not made out a case which should fall in any of the classes of cases indicated above. The Division Bench observed that the Investigating Agency must be given free hand to investigate the matter and the investigation is expected AJN 8 to be free, fair and just. A statement of learned Public Prosecutor was recorded that a Team of Senior Officers has been constituted to investigate into the entire episode and the Team is headed by Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime). The Division Bench directed the two petitioners and all concerned to render help to the Investigating Agencies rather than to keep on filing the petitions. The petitions were dismissed with the above observations. It may be noted here that learned Public Prosecutor has tendered a copy of letter dated 28/7/2010 addressed by ACP Ashok Duraphe to his office stating that investigation so far carried out has not revealed any nexus between the terrorists and the politicians. We have taken that letter on record today and marked it “X”. 8. We find that the issues which were raised before this court in the above petitions are raised in this petition also. Once this court has considered those issues and passed a reasoned order dismissing the petitions, we cannot go into those issues. Judicial propriety demands that since the AJN 9 coordinate Bench has considered those issues and delivered a judgment, we should not reopen them. The petition must be dismissed on this ground alone. In view of this, it is not necessary for us to go into the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Dada as regards the maintainability of this petition as a public interest litigation. 9. We must, however, note that learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1997 (4) S.C. 237 where the Supreme Court was dealing with a public interest litigation filed by Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. Rajya Sabha, and others. It appears that the Vohra Committee was set up to take urgent stock of all available information about the activities and links of all Mafia organizations / elements to enable further action. The Report of the Committee noted inter alia that criminal elements have developed extensive network of contacts with bureaucrats, AJN 10 government functionaries, politicians, etc. The Report recommended the setting up of a Nodal Agency. The petitioner inter alia wanted the full investigatory details of the Report to be made public. The Supreme Court considered all relevant aspects of the matter and gave following directions. “We are, therefore, of the view that the matter needs to be addressed by a body which can function with the highest degree of independence, being completely free from every conceivable influence and pressure. Such a body must possess the necessary powers to be able to direct investigation of all charges throughly before it decides, if at all, to launch prosecutions. To this end, the facilities and services of trained investigators with distinguished records and impeccable credentials must be made available to it. The Report, the supporting material upon which it is based and the unequivocal assistance of all existing intelligence agencies must be forwarded to this body. In time if the need is so felt, the body may even consider the feasibility of designating Special Courts to try those who are identified by it, which proposal may then be considered by the Union Government. To this end, and in the absence of any existing suitable institution or till its creation, we AJN 11 recommend that a high level committee be appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Prime Minister, and after consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. The Committee shall monitor investigations involving the kind of nexus referred to in the Vohra Committee Report and carry out the objectives described earlier.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Union of India must inform the court whether the above directions given by the Supreme Court have been followed by the Union of India or not. 11. After the petitioner got to know that the 4th respondent claims that he made the statement on the basis of the Vohra Committee Report, he has not amended the petition raising this point. Though this point is not raised, it arose during the course of hearing of this petition. In fact, on 26/11/2009, this court directed that the Union of India may be made a party to this petition as the court wanted to know as to what steps the Central Government has taken pursuant to the Vohra Committee AJN 12 Report. It is unfortunate that despite this, the Union of India should not inform this court as to what steps it has taken pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in Dinesh Trivedi. Since this point is not raised in the petition, we do not want to delve into it. However, it is not necessary for us to state the obvious that the directions given by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi will have to be followed by the Union of India for they are in the interest of all the citizen of this country. We hope and trust that though counsel for the Union of India has not been able to furnish to us the necessary data regarding compliance of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi probably because of lack of communication, the Union of India has, in fact, taken the necessary steps. If there is any laxity in that behalf, the Union of India should expedite its action and ensure that there is total compliance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi. AJN 13 12. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]