COMMON CAUSE & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 731, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Facts
(2015] 6 S.C.R. 731 
COMMON CAUSE & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
I.A. No. 13/2014 and Crl. M.P. No.387/2015 
IN 
(Writ Petition (C} No.463/2012) 
MAY 14, 2015 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND 
A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Investigation - Fair investigation - Coal-Block allocation 
case - Interlocutory application, seeking direction to the 
Director CBI (Ranjit Sinha) not to interfere with investigations D 
in coal-block a/location case and direction to appoint SIT to 
investigate the abuse of authority committed by the CBI 
Director in order to scuttle inquiries, investigations and 
prosecutions carried out by CBI, in coal block allocation 
cases and other important cases - Held: On account of E 
superannuation of the Director, the plea of his refusal from 
the investigation has become infructuous - Investigations 
must not only be fair, but must appear to have been conducted 
in a fair manner- The responsibility of investigating agency. F 
to ensure that innocent person is not subjected to criminal 
trial, is coupled with equally high degree of ethical rectitude 
to ensure that investigations are fair and without bias -
The 
fact of the CBI Director meeting some of the accused persons 
without the Investigating Officer or the investigating team G 
creates a doubt regarding fairness of the investigations -
Therefore, some further inquiry is necessary to ensure the 
fairness of investigations in coalb/ock a/location cases as to 
whether any one or more such meetings
had any impact on 
731 
H
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
the investigations and subsequent charge-sheets or closure 
reports - Assistance of Central Vigilance Commission 
sought for determining the methodology for conducting such 
inquiry- Investigation. 
B 
Sidhartha Vashisht@ Manu Sharma v. State (2010) 6 
SCC 1; ManoharLal Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 532-relied on. 
· FIR- Registration of- Interlocutory application seeking 
recusal of the CBI Director (Ranjit Sinha) from the 
c investigation in coalblock a/location case and also seeking 
appointment of SIT to investigate the abuse of authority by 
him - Application by the CBI Director seeking direction to 
register FIR against the Advocate (Prashant Bhushan) and 
the petitioner/applicant for making deliberate and intentional 
D false statements in the present proceedings - Took the plea 
that they were guilty of peljury and contempt of court and that 
the advocate was also guilty of violating the provisions of 
Official Secrets Act- HELD: If the whistle blower gets access 
to the documents, secrecy of which ought to have been 
E maintained by the CBI and if the disclosure of such 
documents is in public interest and not malafide, he cannot 
be held liable for contempt of court or perjury- The file notes 
regarding the case of an accused in coalblock allocation case 
which was placed on record, cannot be described as an 
F official secret' - Therefore, the application of the CBI Director 
dismissed- Contempt of Court- Official Secrets Act,
1923 
- Penal Code, 1860 - Perjury. 
Perumal v. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377; State of Madhya 
G Pradesh v. Narmada BachaoAndolan &Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 
639; Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K.Jain (2010) 
8 sec 281 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
H 
(2010) 6 sec 1 
relied on. 
Para 33
COMMON CAUSE v."UNION OF INDIA 
(2014) 2 sec 532 
relied on. 
Para 34 
(2014) s sec 377 
referred to. 
Para 38 
(2011) 1 sec 639 
refereed to. 
Para 39 
(2010) 8 sec 281 
referred to. 
Para 40 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 13 of 2014 and 
Crl M.P. No. 387 of 2015 
IN 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463 of 2012 
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
INDIA] 
733 
A 
B 
c 
D 
A. Sharan, Vikas Singh Guru Kishan Kumar, Prashant 
Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Sudip Shrivastava, AmitAnand 
Tiwari, Sanchit Guru, Ashutosh Jha, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, 
Abhinandan Banerjee, Deepika Kalia, Kapish Seth, Chandra 
Prakash, Meenakshi Grover, Ajay Sharma, Gaurav Sharma, E 
Menaka Guruswamy, Himanshu Agarwal, Madhulika, D.S. 
Mahra, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, T.K. Singh, S.S. 
Shamshery, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ruchi Kohli, S. 
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Kamini Jaiswal, 
Mishra Saurabh, D. Mahesh Babu, Kirti Renu Mishra, Anip F 
Sachthey, Saakaar Sardana, Khaitan & Co., E.G. Agarwala, 
Braj Kishore Mishra, Aparna Jha, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, 
Dinesh Kumar Garg, Shally Bhasin, Hemantika Wahi Jesal 
Wahi, for the appearing parties. 
The order of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. The prayer in IA No.13/2014 
filed by Common Cause & others is two-fold: 
G 
H 
(1) Direct Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director CBI, notto interfere in
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A the coal block allocation case investigations and prosecutions 
being carried out by the CBI and to recuse himself from these 
cases. 
(2) Direct an SIT appointed by the Hon'ble Court to 
B investigate the abuse of authority committed by the CBI 
Director in order to scuttle inquires, investigations and 
prosecutions being carried out by the CBI in coal block 
allocation cases and other important cases. 
c 
2. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, since Mr. Ranjit 
Sinha, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 
the CBI) has admittedly superannuated on or about 2nd 
December, 2014 the question of his recusal from 
investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI 
D in respect of cases arising out of what is now commonly known 
as the Coal Block Allocations case has become infructuous. 
We are, therefore, concerned only with the second prayer in 
the application. 
E 
F 
G 
3. The prayer in Crl. MP No.387/2015 filed by Mr. Ranjit 
Sinha is as follows: 
A. Direct the concerned Police Station to register an FIR 
against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the Petitioner Association 
(i.e. Common Cause) and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal for 
making deliberate and intentional false statements.on 
oath and before this Hon'ble Court in these proceedings, 
B. Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fa 
and proper. 
4. We propose to consider both these applications since 
we have heard submissions on them. 
5. It is not
necessary to go into the detailed background of 
H the case since all the facts are on record in the judgment
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 
735 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
delivered by this Court in Manohar Lat Sharma v. Principal A 
Secretary and Ors.' Nevertheless, some facts are necessary 
for the purposes of a decision on these applications. 
6. During the course of hearing of the writ petition on 24111 
January, 2013 and in response to a query made by this Court, 
B 
a statement was made by the learned Additional Solicitor 
General that on the next date of hearing, the status of the 
investigations (into the allotment of coal blocks) shall be made 
known to this Court through an affidavit filed by a competent 
authority. The case was then adjourned to 12th March, 2013. 
C 
7. Pursuant to the statement made by the learned 
Additional Solicitor General, a status report was filed by the 
CBI on 8th March, 2013 in a sealed cover. This status report 
was perused on 12th March, 2013 and upon a consideration D 
of the entire matter, this Court required an affidavit to be filed 
by the Director, CBI thatthe status report submitted was vetted 
by him and nothing therein has been shared with the political 
executive. He was also required to state on affidavit that the 
same procedure would be followed in respect of subsequent E 
status reports that may be filed in this Court. The status report 
was then re-sealed and the case adjourned to 30th April, 2013. 
8. Acting on the above order, the Director, CBI filed the 
requisite affidavit on 26111 April, 2013. When the case was taken 
F 
up on
30th April, 2013 the affidavit filed by the Director, CBI 
was perused and this Court was of the view that the following 
aspects needed to be clarified by the Director, CBI: 
"(i) As to why in the status report dated 08.03.2013 no G 
disclosure was made to this Court that the draft report 
has been shared with the political executive and officials. 
(ii) What was the basis and reasons for the C.B.I. in 
' (2014) 2 sec 532 
H
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
making the statement on 12.03.2013 through its counsel 
(Additional Solicitor General) before this Court that the 
status report dated 08.03.2013 has not been shared with 
any one and it is meant only for the Court. 
B 
(iii) In the affidavit now filed by the Director, C.B.I. on April 
26, 2013 it is stated that the draft of the status report 
dated March 8, 2013 was shared with the Minister of 
Law & Justice as desired by him prior to its submission 
before this Court and it was also shared with Joint 
C 
Secretary level officers each of the Prime Minister's 
Officer and Ministry of Coal as desired by them but 
nothing has been said in the affidavit whether or not 
changes were made in the draft report and, if yes, at 
whose instance and the extent of changes and whether 
D 
besides the three persons mentioned in para 4 of the 
affidavit, the draft report was shared with any other person 
in that meeting. 
(iv) The names of the two officers one each of the Prime 
E 
Minister's Office and Ministry of Coal referred to in para 
4 of the affidavit. 
F 
(v) xxxx xxxxx 
(vi) xxxx xxxxx" 
9. It was directed that an affidavit giving the above 
information may be filed by the Director, CBI by 6th May, 2013 
and the case was then adjourned to 8th May, 2013. As required, 
the Director, CBI filed a further affidavit in this regard on 61" 
G May,2013. 
10. When the case was taken up on 81" May, 2013 Mr. 
Prashant Bhushan learned counsel
for Common Cause made 
his submissions. Keeping the submissions in mind it was 
H directed that the Director, CBI shall henceforth ensure the
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 
737 
. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
secrecy of inquiries and investigations into the allocation of A 
coal blocks and that no access of any nature whatsoever is 
provided to any person or authority including any Minister of 
the Central Cabinet, Law Officers, Advocates of the CBI, 
Director of Prosecution and Officials/Officers of the Central 
Government. 
B 
11. It is in the background ofthe above broad facts relating 
to the secrecy (and purity) of the investigations that IA No. 13/ 
2014 appears to have been moved by Common Cause with 
some additional facts having come to its notice after the C 
aforesaid orders were passed by this Court. 
Pleadings and documents 
12. Apart from stating a few relevant facts in the application, 
D 
what is of immediate concern is the averment made in 
paragraph 9 of the application that Common Cause has come 
to know that Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI had met several 
persons at his residence who are accused in prominent cases 
including the Coal Block Allocation scam without any of the E 
investigating officers being present. (Emphasis is given by us). 
It is then stated in Para 10 of the application as follows: 
"It is of particular significance that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had 
several meetings with Mr. Vijay Darda, and.his son Mr. 
F 
Devendra Darda, who are being investigated in the case 
of illegal allocation of coal blocks. Mr. Sinha also met 
with Mr. Subodh Kant Sahay, former Union Minister, 
whose brother's
company is one of the beneficiaries of 
the allocation of coal blocks and is being investigated G 
by the CBI." 
13. In paragraph 11 of the application, it is stated that there 
is an 'entry register' containing details of visitors, including the 
accused persons, who met Mr. Sinha at his residence from 
H
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A time to time. It is stated that Mr. Sinha did not meet them at his 
office or in the presence of the investigating officers. Rather 
he met them at his residence without the investigation team 
being present. A copy of the 'entry register' is filed in a sealed 
B 
c 
D 
cover as an annexure to the application. 
14. In paragraph 12 of the application a reference is made 
to Mr. Ranjit Sinha meeting some accused persons in what is 
commonly known as the 2G spectrum case being an appeal 
filed by the Centre for PIL.2 
15. At this stage it is necessary to digress a bit and mention 
that in the 2G spectrum case, an application was filed by the 
petitioner therein being IA No. 73 of2014 in which it was prayed 
as follows: · 
"(i) Direct the CBI Director Shri Ranjit Sinha not to inter-
fere in investigation and prosecution of the case relating 
to the 2G spectrum allocation being carried out by the 
CBI, and to recuse himself from the case. 
E 
(ii) Pass further orders as may be deemed fit and proper." 
16. An additional affidavit dated 5'" September, 2014 was 
also filed in support of IA No. 73 of2014 in which it was prayed 
that this Court should "order an SIT investigation into the gross 
F abuse of authority committed by the CBI Director in trying to 
scuttle investigations and prosecutions being carried out by 
the CBI in 2G scam cases and other prominent cases ... " 
17. After an elaborate hearing, this Court passed an or-
G der
in IA No. 73 of 2014 on 20'" November, 2014 the relevant 
portion of which reads as follows: 
"To protect and preserve the sanctity and the fair name of 
H 
2 Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010: Centre for PIL v. Union of India
COMMON CAU'SEv. UNION OF INDIA 
739 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
the institution including the reputation of the Office of the A 
Director of CBI, we are.not deliberately giving out elabo-
rate reasons. It would suffice for us to observe that the 
information furnished by the applicants is prima facie cred-
ible and therefore requires to be accepted. 
Let it not be said by anybody, that we have not given any 
reasons while disposing of the application. We are reiter-
ating this statement only to prevent flak from several quar-
B 
. ters of the society. We would like to re-emphasize that 
elaborate reasons are not necessary, only to protect the C 
reputation of the CBI from being tarnished. 
In view of the above, we grant the aforesaid relief sought 
by the applicants and pass the following orders:-
D 
(i) We recall our earlier order passed on 15.09.2014 
so far as it relates to I.A. No. 73 of 2014. 
(ii) We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to in-
terfere in the investigation and prosecution of the case 
relating to the 2G spectrum allocation that is carried out E 
by the CBI, and to recuse himselffrom the case. 
(iii) Shri Ranjit Sinha shall be replaced by the senior 
most officer of the investigating team, constituted by the 
CBI to investigate into the case relating to the 2G spec-
F 
trum allocation and continue the proceedings further. 
With the above observations, I.A. No. 73 of 2014 (appli-
cation for directions) is disposed of."3 
18. In support of his submission
that an SIT should be 
constituted to look into the abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit Sinha 
in attempting to scuttle the investigations into the coal block 
' (2015) 2 sec 362 
G 
H
• 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
allocations, Mr. Prashant Bhushan filed a short note dated 12th 
January, 2015. Along with the note, he annexed a photocopy 
of a file in respect of the case against the Dardas 
(abovementioned). It was submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan 
during the course of his oral submissions that the photocopy 
B of the file was given to him by a whistle blower. 
19. In response, the CBI filed a note date 18th September, 
2014 in a sealed cover indicating the detailed procedure 
followed by the CBI before a final decision is taken by a 
C competent authority on closing a case or filing a charge sheet. 
It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the procedure 
followed but it is necessary only to mention that the CBI does 
follow quite a detailed and open process of discussion and 
expression of views before a final decision is taken on matters 
D before it. We may record that we have absolutely no quarrel 
with the procedure prescribed by the CBI before it takes a 
final decision. With regard to the 'entry register' relied upon by 
Mr. Prashant Bhushan it is stated that a copy thereof has not 
been supplied to the counsel for the CBI and in any case it is 
E the subject matter of an enquiry before another Bench dealing 
with the 2G spectrum case. 
20. The CBI also filed a note dated 20th February, 2015 in 
a sealed cover. In this note, the merits of the controversy relating 
F to the Dardas are adverted to and the decisions
taken by the 
CBI have been justified. It is also stated that the strength of the 
CBI lies in the multiple levels of supervision where each level 
is free and independent in expressing its views and 
recommendations. It is only after taking account of these views 
G and recommendations that the competent authority passes a 
final order which then becomes the stand of the CBI. 
H 
21. With reference to the 'entry register' or the visitor's 
diary, it is stated that it has not been supplied to the CBI and it
.1 •: 1• C,OMMON. C~L!SE v. UNION OF INDIA 
741 
.. 
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.] 
was not maintained by the CBI. It is submitted that since false A 
statements have been made by Common Cause in respect of 
the case pertaining to the Dardas, the 'visitor's diary' must 
also be viewed with suspicion. 
22. Our attention has also been drawn to the order dated B 
Stti May, 2013 passed by this Court to the effect that the secrecy 
of the inquiries and investigations must be ensured. It is 
submitted in this context that the fact that Common Cause has 
obtained a copy of the note sheets of the office file indicates 
that the secrecy of the concerned file has been compromised c 
and that the CBI is taking steps to ascertain how the file moved 
out ofthe office. 
23. Mr. Prashant Bhushan filed a note in rejoinder 
• 
essentially reiterating the submissions made. 
D 
24.AsfarasCrl. MP No. 387/2015filed by Mr. RanjitSinha 
is concerned, he states that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Common 
Cause and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal of Common Cause have 
deliberately made misstatements and stated facts that are not E 
true with a view to mislead this Court. It is submitted in the 
application that according to them, one Mr. Moin Qureshi had 
dealings with Mr. Sinha and that an appraisal report prepared 
by the Income Tax Department contained some details in this 
regard. It is submitted that this allegation was found to be F 
incorrect and was stated so by the learned Attorney General 
when he appeared in this
Court on 17'" October, 2014. This 
Court had also seen the appraisal report and did not find 
anything to link Mr. Moin Qureshi with Mr. Sinha. 
G 
25. It is also stated that in IA No. 13/2014 as well as the 
additional affidavit filed in support of this application it has been 
falsely stated that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had overruled his 
subordinate officers with a view to bring a closure to certain 
cases and this was false to the knowledge of Mr. Prashant H
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Bhushan and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal. 
26. Significantly, in paragraph 6 of the application (that is 
Crl. MP No. 387 of 2015) Mr. Sinha has adverted to the contents 
of paragraph 9 of IA No.13/2014, wherein it has been stated 
B that Mr. Sinha met some accused persons in some prominent 
cases including the Coal Block Allocation case without the 
investigating officer being present. While adverting to this, 
Mr. Sinha states in paragraph 6 of the application as follows:-
C 
"That it has wrongly been averred in para 9 that Shri. 
Sinha (Former Director, CBI) repeatedly overruled the 
Investigating Officers and forced them not to register 
FIRs/RCs in cases where PEs had been registered. It 
has been further wrongly averred that Shri Sinha forced 
o 
the officials to file closure reports in cases where FIR's 
has already been registered." 
27. It is noteworthy that Mr. Sinha does not deny that he 
met some accused persons in the Coal Block Allocation case 
E without the investigating officer being present. 
Submissions and discussion 
28. We heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan for Common Cause, 
Mr. Amarendra Saran, learned Senior Counsel for the CBI and 
F 
Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Ranjit Sinha 
in considerable detail over a few days. 
29. We are of the opinion that it is not at all necessary for 
us, nor is it advisable at this stage, to enter the thicket of 
G allegations made by Common Cause with regard to the
investigations relating to the Dardas or the alleged attempt by 
Mr. Ranjit Sinha to scuttle the investigations with regard to one 
or more of the accused persons in that case. What is of greater 
importance and what has caused us considerable concern is 
H that neither Mr. Ranjit Sinha nor the CBI denies that Mr. Ranjit
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 
743 
- .. ''" 
"""' 
' 
. 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
Sinha had met some persons, including the Dardas, who are A 
accused of criminality in the Coal Block Allocations case 
without the investigating officer or the investigating team being 
present. 
30. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of Mr. Ranjit B 
Sinha that it is his job to meet the accused persons and to get 
their point of view before taking a final decision in the matter 
of their criminality. It is submitted that there is no wrongdoing if 
he as the Director of the CBI meets some accused persons 
so that if they are innocent, they should not unnecessarily and C 
without proper justification be. subjected to a criminal 
prosecution. 
31. We need not comment on the opinion of Mr. Ranjit 
Sinha expressed through his learned counsel Mr. Vikas Singh D 
except to say that even if Mr. Sinha is right, there cannot at all 
be any justification for him to meet any accused person in a 
criminal case where investigation is underway, without the 
investigating officer being present, whether it is in his office or 
as alleged by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, at his residence and that E 
too, allegedly, several times including late at night. If at all Mr. 
Sinha as the Director of the CBI had to meet any accused 
person for obtaining his point of view on the allegations against 
him, he should have done so in the presence of the 
investigating officer or the investigating team. The fact that Mr. 
F
Sinha admittedly met some accused persons in the absence 
of the investigating officer or the investigating team is itself a 
cause for concern. 
32. There is a very high degree of responsibility placed G 
on an investigating agency to ensure that an innocent person 
is not subjected to a criminal trial. This responsibility is coupled 
with an equally high degree of ethical rectitude required of an 
investigating officer or an investigating agency to ensure that 
the investigations are carried out without any bias and are H
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A conducted in all fairness not only to the accused person but 
also to the victim of any crime, whether the victim is an 
individual or the State. 
33. In Sidhartha Vashisht@Manu Sharma v. State" 
B this Court made the following observations with regard to the 
entitlement of an accused to a fair investigation: 
"In the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused is 
placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under 
c 
different jurisprudence of some of the countries in the 
world. The criminal justice administration system in India 
places human rights and dignity for human life at a much 
higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused is 
presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the alleged 
o 
accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation and 
fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play balanced 
role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be 
judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure 
compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the 
E 
fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and 
they are quite in conformity with the constitutional 
mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the 
Constitution of India." 
F 
34. Similarly, in Manohar Lal Sharma5this Court 
observed that investigations have to be fair, impartial and 
uninfluenced by external influences. It is stated as follows: 
"A proper investigation into crime is one of the essentials 
G 
of the criminal justice
system and an integral facet of rule 
of law. The investigation by the police under the Code 
has to be fair, impartial and uninfluenced by external 
• c2010) e sec 1 
H • c2014) 2 sec 532
COMMON CA.USE v. UNION OF INDIA 
745 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
influences. Where investigation into crime is handled by A 
CBI under the DSPEAct, the same principles apply and 
CBI as an investigating agency is supposed to discharge 
its responsibility with competence, promptness, fairness 
and uninfluenced and unhindered by external influences. •oe 
35. In the present case, the contention of the learned 
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Sinha is that there is nothing 
B 
to indicate that his client tried to scuttle the investigations and 
the reference to the investigations in the case of the Dardas is 
completely misplaced. It was contended by learned counsel C 
appearing for the CBI as well as learned counsel for Mr. Ranjit 
Sinha that a prayer for an investigation by an SIT having not 
been accepted by this Court in the application made in the 2G 
spectrum case, the same request in this application should 
not be accepted. 
D 
36. As mentioned above, it is not necessary for us to 
examine whether the investigation into the case of the Dardas 
was in any manner influenced by Mr. Sinha at any point of time. 
What is of importance is that as justice must not only be done E 
but it must also appear to have been done, similarly, 
investigations must not only be fair but must appear to have 
been conducted in a fair manner. The fact that Mr. Sinha met 
some of the accused persons without the investigating officer 
or the investigating team being present disturbs us with regard
F 
to the fairness of the investigations. This is all the more so if 
we keep in mind the fact that in the 2G scam investigations, 
this Court had concluded in its order dated 201h November, 
2011 that Mr. Ranjit Sinha should not interfere in the 
investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G G 
spectrum allocation and to recuse himself from the case. That 
an SIT was not ordered in the 2G spectrum case is not relevant. 
A view was taken that Mr. Sinha should be directed to not 
' Paragraph 33 of the Report 
H
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
interfere in the investigations in that case and that, coupled 
with his meeting accused persons in the Coal BlockAllocation 
case without the investigating officer being present, is enough 
to persuade us that some further inquiry is necessary to ensure 
that the investigations have been fair in the coal block allocation 
B cases where Mr. Sinha has had one or more meetings with 
one or more accused persons. 
37. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI passionately 
submitted that any adverse order that we may pass in this 
C regard would irreparably damage the credibility of the CBI. In 
our opinion this argument is fallacious. If an independent inquiry 
shows that the CBI has acted fairly, it will enhance its institutional 
credibility and its image. On the other hand, ifthe independent 
inquiry shows that Mr. Ranjit Sinha managed to influence some 
D specific investigations in the Coal Block Allocations case, it 
will serve the larger public interest and will enable the CBI to 
take appropriate corrective and remedial measures. Either 
way, through an independent inquiry the CBI will be the 
beneficiary rather than the loser. 
E 
38. While opposing IA No. 13/2014 and supporting Crl. 
MP No. 387/2015 Mr. Vikas Singh relied upon Perumal v. 
Janakf to contend that when a palpably false statement is 
made for extraneous reasons, it is an appropriate case for the 
F exercise of jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code). 
39. Similarly, reference was made to State of Madhya 
Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Ando/an & Anr.8 where also 
G this Court observed that it is a settled proposition of law that a 
false statement made in Court or in the pleadings to 
intentionally mislead the Court and to obtain a favourable order 
1 (2014) s sec 377 
H • c2011) 7 sec 639
;i 
~ · 
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 
747 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
amounts to criminal contempt as it tends to impede the A 
administration of justice. 
40. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Bhushan referred to 
Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K.Jain9 with 
regard to the growing acceptance of the phenomenon of a B 
· whistle blower. This Court observed that the respondent in 
that case was the whistle blower who had tried to highlight the 
malfunctioning of an important institution established for 
dealing with cases involving the revenue of the State and there 
was no reason to silence such a person by invoking the C 
contempt powers of the Court under the Constitution or the 
ContemptofCourtsAct, 1971. 
41. Though the submissions made by Mr. Sinha's learned 
counsel on the contents of his application were limited, the o 
oral submissions spread over a larger canvas. It is submitted 
by Mr. Vikas Singh that Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Common 
Cause and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal have not only committed 
perjury but are also guilty of contempt of Court and additionally 
Mr. Prashant Bhushan has violated the provisions of the Official 
E 
Secrets Act, 1923 by placing on record the official notes with 
regard to the case of the Dardas. We have considered Mr. 
Sinha's application from all these angles. 
42. In our opinion, the submissions made by Mr. Vikas 
F 
Singh in th.is regard do not deserve acceptance. It is true that 
this Court had required the Director, CBI to ensure,
by its order 
dated 8111 May, 2013 that the secrecy of the inquiries and 
investigations into the allocation of coal blocks is maintained. 
However, if somebody accesses documents that ought to be G 
carefully maintained by the CBI, it is difficult to find fault with 
such a whistle blower particularly when his or her action is in 
public interest. It is another matter if the whistle blower uses 
• (2010) s sec 2s1 
H
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A the documents for a purpose that is outrageous or that may 
damage the public interest. In that event, it would be 
permissible forth is Court or an appropriate Court to take action 
against the whistle blower, if he or she is identified. However, 
the present case is not of any such category. The whistle blower, 
B whoever it is, acted purportedly in public interest by seeking 
to bring out what he or she believes is an attempt by Mr. Ranjit 
Sinha to scuttle the investigations into the affairs of the Dardas 
or others in the Coal Block Allocation case. As mentioned 
above, we are not considering whether the file notes actually 
C disclose an attempt by Mr. Sinha to scuttle the investigations. 
All that is of relevance is whether the disclosure by the whistle 
blower was mala fide or not. We are of the opinion that the 
disclosures made by the whistle blower were intended to be 
0 
in public interest. 
E 
F 
43. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Mr. 
Prashant Bhushan or Common Cause or Mr. Kamal Kant 
Jaswal had any intention to mislead this Court in any manner, 
nor do we agree that they have perjured themselves. 
The file notes speak for themselves and any interpretation, 
even an allegedly twisted interpretation said to have been given 
to them, cannot fall within th.e realm of perjury. 
44. As far as the allegation that there has been a violation 
of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is
concerned, 
we are of the opinion that the file notes in this case cannot be 
described as an 'official secret' for the purposes of prosecuting 
Mr. Prashant Bhushan. 
9~--
45.Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 387 of2015 
is dismissed. 
46. With regard to IA No. 13 of 2014, since we have held 
H that it was completely inappropriate for Mr. Ranjit Sinha to have

~' COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 
749 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
met persons accused in the Coal Block Allocation case without A 
the investigating officer being present or without the 
investigating team being present, it is necessary to look into 
the question whether any one or more such meetings of Mr. 
Sinha with accused persons without the investigating officer 
have had any impact on the investigations and subsequent B 
charge sheets or closure reports filed by the CBI. We require 
assistance in this matter, particularly for determining the 
methodology for conducting such an inquiry. For rendering 
assistance to us in this regard, notice be issued to the Central 
Vigilance Commission returnable on 61h July, 2015. 
C 
Kalpana K Tripathy 
Crl. M.P. dismissed 
& I. A. Pending.