SUBRATA CHATIORAJ versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 660, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A 
B 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 660 
SUBRATA CHATIORAJ 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(I.A. No. 16 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 16, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Investigation - Investigation by CBI - Chit fund scams 
in West Bengal and other States - Issuance of direction to 
C transfer cases registered in different police stations to CBI 
for fair and credible investigation by this Court·- During 
pendency of investigation by CBI, writ petition in public 
interest by Union of India seeking transfer of large number 
0 
of other similar cases to CBI - Disposal of writ petition by 
the High Court seeking direction to Central Government 
to issue notification transferring all chit fund cases 
registered in State of Assam to CBI to investigate the said 
cases - Direction a/so issued for investigation uls. 173 
E Cr.PC. where charge-sheets had already been filed -
Subsequently, IA by CBI seeking modification of the said 
order that CBI may be permitted to undertake the 
investigation for limited F/Rs and others may be continued 
by local police of the State since it could not handle the 
F large number of cases with the existing manpower and 
other infrastructure at its disposal - Held: Citizens are 
entitled to not only expect but demand that investigations 
ought to be fair and effective as much as they ought to be 
quick and efficient- It cannot be said that the investigating 
G agencies hands are full of or that it does not have the 
manpower
to handle cases, no matter circumstances justify 
or demand investigation by any agency from outside a 
given State -
CBI as a centrally control investigating 
agency cannot afford to IQse the advantage of it being seen 
H by the citizens and the courts as a credible agency - It 
660
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
661 
can ill-afford to do so on account of shortage of manpower A 
or any other constraint - Thus, the Central Government 
directed to take steps for comprehensive revision of the 
cadre strength of CBI and take immediate steps for filling 
up the vacancies that are already sanctioned -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 21 - Scams. 
B 
Subrata Chattoraj \/. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 
8 SCC 768:2001 (6) SCR 783; Nimeon Sharma 
and Ors. \/. Home Secretary, Government Of 
Meghalaya (1980) 1SCC700: 1979 (3) SCR785; 
C 
Abdul Rehman Antulay And Ors. \/. R.S. Nayak 
andAnr. (1992) 1SCC225:1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 
325; Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary 
1979 AIR 1369: 1979 (3) SCR 532; Kartar Singh 
\/. State Of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 ( 2) 
D 
SCR 375; P Ramachandra Rao V. State Of 
Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2001 (6) SCR 783 
Referred to. 
Para 2 
1979 (3) SCR785 
Referred to. 
Para 18 
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 Referred to. 
Para 19 
1979 (3) SCR 532 
Referred to. 
Para 20 
1994 (2) SCR 375 
Referred to. 
Para 21 
(2002) 4 sec 578 
Referred to. 
Para 22 
CIVILORIGINALJURIDICTION: I.A No.16of2013. 
E 
F 
IN 
G 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2015. 
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India] 
WITH 
SLP (C) No. 21834 of 2015. 
H
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 O S.C.R. 
A 
Maninder Singh, ASG, C. U. Singh, Subhasish 
Bhowrriick, Anip Sachthey, Bhargava V. Desai, Saumya 
Mehrotra, Parijat Sinha, Kabir Sankar Bose, Sunita Sharma, 
N. K. Karna ii, Dhruv Sharan, Sushma Suri, S. Sheoram, Avijit 
Roy, Vartika Sahary (for Corporate Law Group), Debasis 
B 
Sur, Kailash Chand, Kirti Renu Mishra, Ramesh Babu M. 
R., Swati Setia, Ashok K. Srivastava, B. K. Prasad, B. V. 
Balaram Das, Senthil Jagadeesan, Legal Options, Liz 
Mathew, Sumit Kumar, Samir Ali Khan, Arti Singh, Sajith P. 
Snehasish Mukherjee, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, R. 
C Balasubramanian, Pranav Kumar for the appearing parties. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union oflndia & Ors. (2014) 
8 sec 768 this Court directed transfer of cases registered in 
different police stations in the State of West Bengal against 
Saradha Group of Companies and all such cases registered 
E against any other company to the Central Bureau of 
Investigation for a fair and credible investigation including 
investigation if necessary into the larger conspiracy angle and 
the money trail involved in the commission of the offences. By 
the same order we had allowed Writ Petition (C) No.413 of 
F 2013 and Writ Petition (C) No.324 of 2014 and directed transfer 
of cases registered against 44 other chit fund companies for 
a similar investigation. The cases involving chit fund deposits
across several States in the eastern part of the country involved 
several companies, and a scam that was estimated to be over 
G 20,00,00,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand crores) atthe relevant 
point of time. As many as 25 lakhs claims were said to have 
been lodged by the depositors before the Commissions of 
Inquiry set up by the States of Odisha and West Bengal which 
too was indicative of the magnitude of the scam. The scam 
H had inter-state ramifications apart from international money
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
663 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
laundering dimensions involving several persons in public life. 
A 
It put a question mark on the role of regulators like the SEBI. 
and the Reserve Bank of India. Investigation by CBI was in 
that backdrop held to be the only effective method of bringing 
the truth to light unearthing the ramifications and bringing to 
book all those involved in the scam. 
B 
3. The CBI has pursuant to the directions issued by this 
Court taken over the investigation of the cases in·question and 
made significant headway towards completion of the same. 
While the investigation was still in progress Writ Petition No.15 C 
of 2013 was filed in public interest by the respondents in which 
they prayed for transfer of a larg_e number of other cases to the 
CBI on the analogy of the order passed by this Court in Subrata 
Chattoraj's case (supra). The High Court of Guwahati has, by 
order dated 8th May, 2015, disposed of the said writ petition D 
with a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification 
transferring all chit fund cases registered in the State of Assam 
to the Central Bureau of Investigation with a direction to the 
CBI to investigate the said cases. Further investigation in terms 
of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where 
E 
charge-sheets have already been filed have also been directed 
by the Court. The present appeal filed by th~ CBI assails the 
correctness of the said direction. The CBI has
at the same 
time filed IA No.16 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 
F 
(Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India & Ors.) in which it has 
prayed for modification of our order dated gth May, 2014 to the 
following extent: 
"i) That the CBI may be permitted to undertake the 
investigation for only 70 FIRs in relation to non-
G 
Saradha Group Companies. In all other cases 
pertaining to non-Saradha Group Companies in the 
State of West Bengal i.e., other than those 70 FIRs 
where CBI has registered 9 cases, these may kindly H
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
be directed to be continued I pursued in accordance 
with law by the local police of West Bengal. It may be 
directed by this Hon'ble Court that the CBI need not 
take up other cases in the State of West Bengal. 
B 
ii) The local State Police of OrisstJ and West Bengal are 
continuing to receive complaints regarding Chit Fund 
frauds even after 9. 5. 2014, i.e. the date of the judgment 
of this Hon'ble Court. In all those cases, there is neither 
any direction nor is there any requirement for the CBI 
C 
to take up investigation in all FIRs which are registered 
by the State Police authorities in the State of WB after 
09. 05. 2014. Therefore, a. clarification/direction 
deserves to be issued by the orders of this Hon'ble Court 
directing the State of West Bengal and State of Orissa 
D 
to take all necessary steps, in accordance with law, 
pertaining to all those Chit Fund fraud FIRs which are 
registered in these states after 9. 5. 2014. 
iii) That similar direction would deserve to be issued with 
E 
regard to Chit Fund cheating I fraud cases registered 
by the Police authorities in the State of Assam as well 
as in the State ofTripura after9.5.2014 i.e. this Hon'ble 
Court directing the State of Assam and Tripura to take 
all necessary steps, in accordance with law, pertaining 
F 
to all those Chit Fund fraud FIRs which are registered 
in these states after9.5.2014. 
iv) Any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court
may 
deem fit and proper in the light of the facts stated and 
G 
submissions made hereinabove. 
It is prayed accordingly." 
4. One of the main reasons which the CBI has advanced 
H in support of its prayer for modification is that CBI is a small
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
665 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
organisation with limited material and human resources and A 
pre-occupied with Coal Scam and 2G Scam cases entrusted 
to it. Transfer of a large number of cases relating to Chit fund 
scam in the State of Assam, Odisha and West Bengal will, 
according to the CBI, bring it under tremendous pressure 
which, according to the averments made in the application, 
B 
the CBI cannot handle with the existing manpower and other 
infrastructure at its disposal. 
5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court 
on 271h July, 2015 it was argued by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned 
C 
Additional Solicitor General, that there was severe manpower 
deficit in the CBI which was hampering its functioning and the 
investigations entrusted to it. Learned ASG placed on r~cord 
a statement indicating the requirement of additional manpower 
for registration of 265 non-Saradha group cases pertaining to D 
the State of West Bengal. In the statement the CBI appeared 
to be asking for 10 Superintendents of Police, 15 
Investigating Officers, 30 Dy. Superintendents of Police, 85 
Investigating Officers in the rank of Inspectors, 40 Sub-
Inspectors, 20 Assistant Sub-Inspectors and 30 Head E 
Constables. It was submitted that the State of West Bengal 
had been requested to provide the additional manpower 
required to undertake and complete the investigations but the 
State had expressed its inability to do so. The response of the 
F 
State
of West Bengal to the projected manpower requirement 
was placed on record by Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior 
counsel, in the form of an additional affidavit according to which 
as many as 26213 vacancies in different cadres including 
Superintendants of Police, Additional Superintendants of G 
Police and Deputy Superintendants of Police etc. remain to 
be filled up in the said State. It was submitted by Mr. Nageshwar 
Rao that since a large number of cases arose from the State 
of West Bengal, the State Government was not averse to 
providing a reasonable number of officers to the CBI, despite H
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
its own constraints. It was suggested that the Director General 
of Police, Government of West Bengal and the Director, CBI, 
could evolve an acceptable arrangement as regards the 
number of officers to be deputed to CBI and the cadre from 
which they would be drawn. We had accepted that suggestion 
B and directed the two officers to work out an acceptable 
arrangement on the subject. 
6. When the matter appeared again before us on ·24th 
August, 2015, it was pointed out that the Director General of 
C Police, State of West Bengal, was not prepared to spare more 
than three Deputy Superintendants of Police, two Inspectors, 
five Sub-Inspector and ten Constables to ease the manpower 
crunch faced by the CBI. This number was, according to Mr. 
Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, totally 
D inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. 
Kumar argued that as against the total cadre strength of 4544 
officers of different ranks ranging from Constables to the 
Director, CBI, was somehow managing the show with a strength 
of 3790 officers leaving a deficit of 724 officers in different 
E cadres. We had in that view directed the Government of West 
Bengal to at least double the number of officers it was ready 
to lend to the CBI in order to enable the CBI to tide over the 
difficulty. The State was asked to prepare a panel of 12 Deputy 
F Superintendants of Police, 8 Inspectors, 20 Sub-Inspectors 
and
40 Constables from out of which the CBI would select, 
according to the prevalent criteria, 6 Deputy Superintendants 
of Police, 4 Inspectors, 10 Sub-Inspectors and 20 Constables 
for deputation to the CBI. It was also directed that those 
G selected by the CBI shall regardless whether they were 
consenting for such deputation be taken on deputation 
keeping in view the fact that investigation into cases 
transferred to the CBI was in national interest and those 
selected for serving the CBI were expected to respond to the 
H call of duty towards the nation. We had further directed that no
SUBRATA CHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
667 
[T.S. THAKUR, J. ] 
Court shall entertain any petition on behalf of any of the officers A 
sent by the State of West Bengal on deputation to the CBI but 
those aggrieved of such deputation shall be free to approach 
this Court. Having said that we had formulated seven queries 
for the CBI to answer in regard to the current cadre strength, 
revision of the said cadre strength in the past and the number B 
of cases currently pending with the CBI for investigation as 
also the steps taken and the impediments, if any, in filling up 
the unfilled vacancies. The CBI was directed to respond to the 
said queries and to give a clear picture as to the nature of the 
problems and the possible solution to the same. The CBI has, C 
pursuant to the said direction filed an additional affidavit in 
which it has tabulated the current cadre strength in different 
ranks as under: 
Desigmtion of 
Saiction 
Deputation 
PIOll'Otiai 
Direct 
LDCE(Umited 
post 
ed 
quota 
Qucta 
Qoota 
Dllpartmeiital 
D 
Strengh 
Competitive 
Examlnatiai) 
Directer 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
Spl./.Addl. 
Director 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
(SD'AD) 
E 
"".Joint Director (JD) 
18 
14 
4 
0 
0 
-Depliy 
lnsp. 
39 
33 
6 
0 
0 
Gereral cl Police 
(DIG) 
F 
Sr.Superirtenclert 
10 
0 
10 
0 
0 
of Police (Sr. SP) 
Superintendert 
of 
101 
(i3 
38 
0 
0 
Police(SP) 
.Addi. 
91 
0 
91 
0 
0 
G 
Superintendert of 
Police ASP 
Deplty 
265 
'lJ 
200 
0 
29 
Superintend art of 
Police (DSP) 
H
668 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 
Inspector. 
908 
417 
491 
0 
0 
Sub Inspector 
414 
0 
83 
243 
88 
(SI) 
Asst. 
Sub 
207 
0 
145 
0 
62 
Inspector 
(ASI) 
Head 
583 
0 
408 
0 
175 
Constable 
Constable 
1903 
1903 
0 
0 
0 
TOTAL 
4,544 
2462 
1485 
243 
354 
:/. In answer to query no.2 raised by this Court the 
affidavit states that no comprehensive revision of CBI 
cadre strength has taken place since the formation of 
CBI in the year 1963 no matter the cadre strength has 
E been increased over the years in a piecemeal manner 
with a view to establishing the presence of CBI in those 
areas of the country where there was no CBI office 
despite a requirement for the same. The creation of posts 
in different cadres has been indicated by the CBI as 
F under: 
G 
H 
"i. Creation of 336 posts for OB new Branches-DoPT 
(Department of Personnel 
& 
Training, 
Government of India) vide order No.20110412009-
AVD.ll dated 30.08.2010 conveyed approval of the 
competent authority for creation of 336 posts for 
08 new CBI Branches. It is respectfully submitted 
that creation of these posts was meant for OB new 
Branches 
i.e. 
Srinagar, 
Shim/a, 
Thiruvananthapuram, Port Blair, Chhattisgarh,
SUBRATACHATIORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
669 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
Imphal, Ghaziabad and Pune with the object to A 
undertake anti-corruption work in those areas of 
country which were not covered earlier. 
ii. Creation of 01 post of Joint Director/North-Eastern 
Region - Do PT vide order No. 20217312010-AVD. II 
dated 09.04.2012 conveyed approval of the B 
competent authority for creation of one post of 
Joint Director. It is respectfully submitted that this 
post was created exclusively for North-Eastern 
Region. 
c· 
iii. Creation of 88 posts for 22 additional Special 
Courts - Do PT vi de order No. 24516312012-A VD. I I 
(Pt.IV) dated 28.05.2013 conveyed approval of the 
competent authority for creation of 88 posts (1 
Public Prosecutor, 1 Pairvi Officer (Inspector), 1 D 
Naib Court (Head Constable) and 1 Stenographer 
for each court) for conducting/he/ping prosecution 
in 22 add/. Special Courts in different States/UTs 
in the country. It is clarified that these posts were 
created only for conducting helping .prosecution E 
work and not for investigation work." 
8. In answer to query no.4 touching the number of 
cases under investigation by CBI and number of cases 
pending with the CBI at the time of increase in the cadre F 
strength mentioned above the CBI has given the following 
figures: 
Date 
No. of cases pending 
.. 
30.08;2010 
1007 
G 
31.03.2012 
1012 
31.05.2013 
1037 
31.08.2015 
1241 
H
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10S.C.R. 
A 
9. So also the break-up of 724 vacancies in CBI in all 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
cadres has been set out by the CBI in the affidavit as under: --
Rank 
Vacancies 
Dep. Quota 
Prom. 
Direct 
LDCE 
Quota 
quota 
Director 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
SD/AD 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
JD 
3 
3 
0 
0 
0 
DIG 
13 
10 
3 
. 
0 
0 
. 
Sr. SP 
6 
0 
6 
0 
0 
SP 
34 
25 
9 
0 
0 
Addi. SP 
24 
0 
24 
0 
0 
. 
Dy.SP 
44 
0 
7 
0 
28 
Inspector 
114 
100 
14 
0 
0 
Sub-
247 
0 
56 
150 
41 
Insoector 
AS( 
33 
0 
23 
0 
10 
Head 
36 
0 
27 
0 
9 
Constable 
Constable 
168 
168 
0 
0 
0 
TOTAL 
724 
317 
119 
150 
88 
10. As regards the steps taken by CBI for filling up of the 
vacancies the affidavit states as under: 
Joint 
"That the following steps are being taken by CBI for filling 
up the vacancies:-
Rank 
Steps taken/being taken 
Director/JD 
(3 
04 IPS officers working as DIGs in CBI 
vacancies) 
have been empanelled to hold IG level 
post at Centre on 17.08.15 and their 
cases are being processed for induction 
as JD in CBI since 17.08.15
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
[T.S. THAKUR, j_] 
Deputy 
lnsp. 
General 
Police /DIG (13 vacancies) 
of 08 IPS officers presently working 
as 
SP 
in 
CBI 
have 
been 
empanelled to hold DIG level post 
at Centre on 02.09.15 and their 
cases are being processed for 
671 
A 
induction as DIG 
in CBI since 
B 
Sr. 
Superintendent 
Police/Sr.SP (6 vacancies) 
02.09.15 
of A proposal seeking relaxation in 
the eligibility criteria in respect of 
16 SsP of CBI for consideration of 
their promotion to the rank of 
Sr.SP was sent to DP& T on 
Of12.2014. 
DoPT 
allowed 
relaxation in respect of 03 SsP on 
11.06.2015. 
However, the said 
proposal is pending in view of the 
decision given by the Hon'ble Qelhi 
High Court on 22.05.2015 in WP 
(C) No.7370/2010 filed by Shri 
S.K. Khare. 
Superintendent of Police/SP 
Joining of 01 JPS officer is awaited. 
(34 vacancies). 
Addi. 
Superintendent 
of 
Police/ASP (24 vacancies) 
Cadre clearance with respect to 
03 JPS officers has been obtained 
on 25.08.15 & 27.08.15. 
Proposal to fill up 07 vacancies of 
SP has been sent to DoPT on 
10.08.2015 
for 
onward 
transmission 
to 
UPSC 
for 
convening the meeting of DPC 
(Departmental 
Promotion 
Committee) 
• 
A proposal for relaxation of 
eligibility criteria for 26 officrs has . 
been 
sent 
to 
DoPT 
on 
30.12.2014. 
• 
Proposal for relaxation of 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
I 
15 more officers has been sent to 
DoPTon 1009.15. 
H
672 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
Deputy 
Superintendent 
of 
Police/DSP (44 vacancies) 
• 
Interview held from 1" Sept. 
to 3rd Sept., 2015 for filling up of 08 
vacancies under deputation quota. 
Inspector (114 vacancies) 
Sub 
Inspector/SI 
vacancies) 
• 
Approval of modalities for 
holding LDCE for filing 28 posts 
was obtained on 14.08.15. 
• 
71 Sub-Inspectors promoted 
as 
Inspector vide order dated 
05.09.2015 after seeking relaxation 
from DoPT. 
• 
DO letter from DCB! issued 
to DGs of States and CPOs on 
04.09.2015 
for 
circulation 
for 
nominating names of willing/eligible 
officials for induction as Inspector in 
CBI on deputation basis. 
(247 
• 
Offer of appointment have 
been issued to 63 candidates for 
reporting 
at 
CBI 
Acadeniy on 
14.09.2015. 
• 
A requisition for 93 dossiers 
was sent on 25.11.2014 to SSC for 
filling up vacancies. 
• 
12 Sub-Inspectors selected 
under 
LDCE-2015. 
Offer 
of 
appointment issued for joining at 
CBI Academy on 14.9.2015. 
• 
14 Officers promoted 
on 
29.06.2015. 
Asst. Sub Inspector/AS! (33 
• 
DPC meeting for promotion 
vacancies) 
of 22 HCs to AS! was held on 
22.07.2015. 
F 
• 
Examination for promotion of 
HCs/General Duty cadre(GD) to 
ASl/GD conducted on 27.06.2015. 
Interview of qualifying candidates 
was held on 3rd & 4
111 Sept., 2015. 
Result awaited. 
G 
Head 
Constable 
vacancies) 
H 
(36 
• 
Integrity CertificateNigilance 
Clearance & APAR grading in 
respect of 53 Constables have
been called for on 31.08.2015 for 
consideration of their promotion. 
• 
LDCE of Constable to the 
rank of Hd. Const. for the year 
2015 held on 22.08.2015 in CBI 
Academy. Result is awaited.
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
673 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
Constable(168 vacancies) 
• 
42 Constables of Central 
Police Organisations and 
State 
Police have been selected. 
Their 
joining is awaite.Q. 
• 
Approx. 
100 
nominations 
received from various organizations 
A 
are under process of selection. 
B 
• 
Nominations of approx. 125 
Constables have been called from 
different 
Police 
Forces 
against 
existina and anticioated vacancies. 
11. Impediments in filling up the unfilled vacancies have 
also been enumerated by the CBI in the following words: 
C 
(i) 
Residency (eligibility) period for promotion - Non-
availabilty of eligible officers for promotion in the rank . 
of AS/ to Sr. SP due to non~completion of residency 
period required for promotion under Recruitment 0 
Rules is an impediment in filling up the vacancies. 
CBI has written to DoPT for seeking relaxation in 
eligibility criteria. 
(ii) Higher Grade Pay in State Police -
E 
CBI is facing difficulty in filling vacancies under 
deputation quota particularly in two ranks i.e. 
Constable and Inspectors from some states viz. Tamil 
Nadu, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Assam due to 
higher grade pay in the analogous post: As per DoPT F 
OM dated 17.6.2010 para 3.3., a person in higher 
Grade PaylscakT of pay shall not be appointed on 
deputation to a post in lower Grade Pay/scale of pay 
if the deputation is from Central Government to G 
Central Government and also in cases where the scale 
of pay and dearness
allowance in the parent cadre 
post and ex-cadre post are similar. 
(iii) Cadre Clearance/NOC by States!CPOs-Candidates 
short-listed by CBI for deputation from State Police H
674 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 1 O S.C.R. 
forces/CPOs require clearance for that purpose by 
respective competent authorities of the States/CPOs. 
In many cases, the cadre clearance/NOC from states/ 
CPOs is not forthcoming." 
12. Proposals for increase of cadre strength of CBI which 
are under consideration of the Government of India have been 
enumerated in paras 1 O(i) to 1 O(iv) of the affidavit as under: 
i. Proposal dated 02.09.2011 regarding strengthening 
of CBI by creation of 2063 posts in different ranks in 
three phases (Phase-I - 711 posts). This proposal is 
currently pending consideration with Ministry of Finance, 
Department of Expenditure, Government of India. 
. 
. 
ii. Proposal dated 15.01.2014 was sent for creation of 
252 additional posts of Head Constables and 
Constables for execution of summonslwaffants arising 
out of creation of 70 Additional Special Courts. This 
proposal is currently pending consideration with DoPT, 
Government of India. 
iii. Proposal dated 31.07.2015 was sent for setting up 
new Zone AC-HQ-// by creation of 496 posts in different 
ranks for VYAPAM Case in two phases i.e. Phase-1-
322 posts and Phase-// - 17 4 posts. This proposal is 
currently pending consideration with the Ministry of 
Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of 
India. 
iv. Proposal dated 12. 8. 2015 was sent for setting-up new 
Zone E0-111 by creation of 410 posts in different ranks 
for Chit Fund/Ponzi Scheme Scam cases in
two phases . 
i.e. Phase-I- 278 posts and Phase-I/- 132 posts. This 
proposal is currently pending consideration with the 
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, 
Government of India."
SUBRATA CHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
675 
[T.S. THAKUR, J. ] 
13. More importantly, the CBl's affidavit candidly concedes A 
that a comprehensive revision of cadre strength is long 
overdue and such a step is necessary for strengthening the 
CBI in meeting the emerging challenges. The affidavit states: 
''That a comprehensive revision of cadre strength of CBI B 
is long overdue and such a step will definitely 
strengthen the organization and help CBI in meeting 
the emerging challenges and fulfil the increasing 
expectations of the society." 
14. The absence of a comprehensive review of cadre 
strength ever since the organisation came to be established 
is somewhat surprising to say the least. The averments made 
c 
in the passage extracted above shows as if the CBI is itself 
crying for a comprehensive revision of the cadre strength. We D 
are at a loss to understand why such a revision has not been 
carried out so far and why should it be left to Court to direct a 
revision which in its very nature is a Governmental function in 
the performance of which there ought to be no deficit. 
E 
15. The data furnished by the CBI further shows that 
creation of vacancies and filling up of such vacancies has 
suffered primarily because of a lackadaisical attitude of the 
departments concerned towards a matter of significant public 
importance directly related to the administration of justice and 
F 
the rule of law. For instance, despite 2 vacancies in the cadre 
of Special
Directors, no steps appear to have been taken thus 
far. So also against 3 vacancies in the cadre of Joint 
Directors the appointment process is reported to have been 
initiated but only in August, 2015. 
G 
16. Similarly, there are 13 vacancies in the cadre of DIGs 
against which only 8 appointments are said to be under 
process that too since 2nd September, 2015. Against 6 
vacancies in the cadre of Sr. SPs, the proposal for relaxation 
H
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 O S.C.R. 
A 
seems to be languishing since 1•1 December, 2014 except in 
three cases where DoPT is said to have responded to the 
proposal. The position in regard to remaining vacancies in 
the cadre of DSPs and below is no different. There are 34 
vacancies in the cadre of SPs against which a proposal for 7 
B vacancies appears to have been sent to Do PT as recently as 
on 101h August, 2015. Nothing is said about the remaining 
vacancies nor any reason given for not filling up of the same. 
Against 24 vacancies in the cadre of ASPs also only a 
proposal for relaxation of eligibility criteria appears to have 
C been sent to DoPTwhich has not so far fructified. 
17. The position in regard to lower cadre is even worse. 
As for instance there are 114 vacancies in the cadre of 
Inspectors, 47 vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, 33 
D vacancies in the cadre of AS ls, 36 vacancies in cadre of Head 
Constables and 168 in the cadre of Constables. While it is 
true that a comprehensive review of cadre strength is overdue, 
there is little or practically no explanation for the failure of the 
Government to fill up the vacancies that stand sanctioned and 
E are available for being filled up by the Government. The 
impression that one gathers from the current state of affairs 
and the neglect and apathy of the past is that filling up of 
vacancies is a low priority area for the Government, no matter 
F the number of cases has gradually
increased forcing the CBI 
to throw up its hands and plead inability to take over and 
complete investigation into cases of considerable importance 
because of the manpower crunch. This is not a happy 
situation to say the least. Cases transferred to CBI are not run 
G of the mill cases involving ordinary crimes or criminals nor is 
CBI an ordinary investigating agency. It is a specialised agency 
which has on account of its dispassionate and sustained hard 
work earned for itself a certain amount of credibility in the 
minds of the people of this country. Whenever cases of public 
H importance apart from cases of corruption against Central
SUBRATACHADORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
677 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
Government employees and people in high places come to A 
occupy the centre stage of public attention, people cry for a 
CBI investigation in the hope that the investigation would 
. unravel the truth regardless of the influence or clout political or 
otherwise of those being investigated. Courts have also 
reposed confidence in the fairness of investigation of the CBI 
B 
despite accusations that are at times made that even CBI can 
be misused. What is important is that the CBI is today a 
premier investigating agency handling a considerably large 
number of cases of significant public importance. Saradha Chit 
Fund-scam is just one such case apart from many others which C 
are currently in the Courts or under investigation. The question 
is whether indifference or apathy can be allowed to frustrate 
either the cause of justice or become an instrument of 
oppression and injustice implidt in an unduly delayed 0 
completion of investigation. Our answer is in the negative. We 
say so because quick and effective investigation has been 
recognised by this Court in a series of judgments delivered 
over the past few decades to be a part of right to life 
guaranteed under the Constitution. We may, in this regard, refer E 
to some of the decisions which have recognised fair, effective 
and speedy investigation as one of the facets of the 
guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
18. In Nimeon Sharma
and Ors. v. Home Secretary, 
F 
Government of Megha/aya (1980) 1 SCC 700, this Court 
held that the delay in investigation and trials was a wholesale 
breach of human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the 
Constitution of India and that criminal justice breaks down, at 
a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the G 
affected parties are languishing in jail. Speaking for the Court 
Krishna Iyer, J. said : 
"4 ... ... Criminal justice breaks down at a point when 
expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected H
678 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure 
Code in Sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasised 
the importance of expeditious disposal of cases 
including investigations and trials. It is unfortunate, 
indeed pathetic, that there should have been such 
considerable delay in investigations by the police in 
utter disregard of the fact that a citizen has been 
deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is 
accused of an offence. We do not approve of this course 
and breach of the rule of Jaw and express our strong 
displeasure at this chaotic state of affairs verging on 
wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under 
the Constitution especially under Article 21 as 
interpreted by this Court." 
D 
19. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak 
andAnr. (1992) 1SCC225, this court held that fair, just and 
reasonable procedure was implicit in Article 21 of the 
Constitution and that Article 21 guarantees a right in the 
accused to be tried speedily. It is in the interest of all concerned 
E that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as 
quickly as possible in the circumstances observed this Court. 
What is important is that right to speedy trial flowing from Article 
21 was held to encompass all stages, namely, the stage of 
F investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The 
. following passage is, in this regard, apposite: 
G 
"86. In view of the above discussion, the
following 
propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We 
must forewarn that these propositions are not 
exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is 
it possible to Jay down any hard and fast rules. These 
propositions are: 
(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 
H 
21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
679 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the A 
accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public 
interest or that it serves the social interest also, does 
not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in 
the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence 
of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in B 
the circumstances. 
(2) Right to speedv trial flowing from Article 21 
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of 
investigation. inquirv. trial. appeal, revision and re-trial. C 
That is how. this Court has understood this right and 
there is no reason to take a restricted view. 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx" 
(emphasis supplied) o 
20. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary 1979 
AIR 1369, this Court ruled that the State cannot avoid its 
constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused 
by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is E 
under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and 
whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the 
State. It is also a constitutional obligation of this Court as the 
guardian of the fundamental rights of the people and as a 
sentinel on the qui vive to enforce the fundamental right of the F 
accused to speedy trial by issuing necessary directions to the 
State which may include taking of positive action, such as 
augmenting and strengthening the investigative machinery, 
setting up
new courts, building new court houses, providing 
more staff and equipment to the court, appointment of G 
additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure 
speedy trial. 
21. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 
569, this Court declared that the concept of speedy trial is H 
read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our 
·Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual 
restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and 
continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, 
inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision so that any possible prejudice 
B that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from 
the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates 
into finality, can be averted. The following passage is, in this 
regard, relevant: · 
c· 
D 
E 
"The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as 
an essential part of the fundamental right to life and 
liberty guaranteed and preserved under our 
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the 
actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent 
incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the 
stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision 
so that any possible prejudice that may result from 
impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the 
commission of the offence till it consummates into a 
finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted 
that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is 
properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure." 
F 
22. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka 
(2002) 4 sec 578, this Court held that the mental agony, 
expense and strain which a person proceeded against in 
criminal
law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, 
may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused 
G to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional court of 
the country in holding the right to speedy trial manifestation of 
fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. 
Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its 
H stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision 
and retrial in short everything commencing with and accusation
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
681 
[T.S. THAKUR, J.] 
and expiring with the final verdict-the two being respectively A 
the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem - of the journey 
which an accused must necessarily undergo once faced with 
an implication. The constitutional philosophy propounded as 
a right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two 
and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far B 
off peak. 
23. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment any further 
with reference to the decided cases that declare in unequivocal 
terms that right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the C 
Constitution of India guarantees the right to speedy justice 
which implies not orrly the right to speedy tri~ but right to 
speedy investigation in criminal cases as well. Investigation 
by ordinary State Investigating Agencies are often quick but 
not so very scientific and focussed for a variety of reasons D 
including the fact that the investigating branch of the State Police 
is either ill-trained in modern and scientific techniques of 
investigation or ill-equipped to handle complicated matters that 
require professional training and equipment, deeper 
understanding of the nuances of law and greater motivation to 
E 
discover the truth. While these are found in a greater measure 
among those working for the Central Bureau of Investigation, 
the problem that has of late arisen is that of manpower crunch 
and the ever increasing number of cases
involving large scams 
F 
transferred to CBI for investigation. The demand for CBI 
investigation into several other cases of public importance also 
appears to be increasing by the day. Courts are often hesitant, 
if not reluctant, to transfer cases to CBI knowing fully well that 
its hands are full with large number of cases already transferred G 
for investigation. But that can be no reason why the agency 
should not be fully equipped in terms of men and material both 
to take up investigations whenever called upon.to do so either 
by the Government or by the Courts. In a democratic country 
like ours governed by the rule of law citizens are entitled to not H
682 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
only expect but demand that investigations ought to be fair 
and effective as much as they ought to be quick and efficient. 
It is no answer to say that the agencies hands are full of or that 
it does not have the manpower to handle cases, no matter 
circumstances justify or demand investigation by any agency 
B from outside a given State. 
24. Suffice it to say that CBI as a centrally control 
investigating agency cannot afford to lose the advantage of it 
being seen by the citizens and the Courts as a credible agency. 
C It can ill-afford to do so on account of shortage of manpower 
or any other constraint. It is, therefore, time for the Central 
Government to direct a comprehensive revision of the cadre 
strength of the Central Bureau of Investigation and take 
immediate steps for filling up the vacancies that are already 
D sanctioned. In the result we deem it fit to issue the following 
directions: 
(1) The Central Government shall as expeditiously as 
possible but not later than two months from today take 
E 
steps for a comprehensive revision of the cadre 
strength of the Central Bureau of Investigation 
established under the Delhi Special Police 
Establishment (DSPE)Act, 1946. The revision of the 
cadre strength when ordered shall be completed within 
F 
a period of four months from the date Government 
issues the necessary directions. 
(2) Pending comprehensive revision of the cadre strength 
as per (1) above, the
Centr.al Government shall take 
G 
immediate steps at the appropriate level to fill up the 
available vacancies within the existing cadre. This 
would imply that the Government attends to and 
processes on urgent basis all proposals currently 
pending at different levels of the hierarchy to which we 
H 
have made a reference in the body of this order.

SUBRATACHATIORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 
683 
[T.S. THAKUR, J. ] 
(3) The Government of West Bengal shall as already A 
directed forward a panel of 12 Deputy Superintendants 
of Police, 8 Inspectors, 20 Sub-Inspectors and 40 
Constables to enable the CBI to select from out of the 
said panel, 6 Deputy Superintendants of Police, 4 
Inspectors, 10 Sub-Inspectors and 20 Constables for B 
deputation to CBI. The needful shall be done within four 
weeks if not already done by the Government of West 
Bengal in which case the CBI shall expedite the process 
of selecting personnel to be taken on deputation to 
mitigate its current manpower requirement. 
C 
25. IA No.16 of 2015 is disposed of with the above 
directions. 
Nidhi Jain 
I.A disposed of . D