LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 299

LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

(CRL.M.P. No. 125554 of 2018)

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 205 OF 2018

NOVEMBER 12, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Extra-judicial Executions: Mandamus – Role of Constitutional Courtin monitoring investigations in continuing mandamus – The instantwrit petitions were filed by some police personnel of Manipur Policeaggrieved by certain observations made in EEVFAM case andseeking mandamus for quashing the observations – The prayer ofthe applicants/petitioners was that in view of the observations madein EEVFAM case on 30[th] July, 2018, the investigations be monitoredby another set of judges of the Supreme Court – Recusal of thebench was, therefore, sought on the ground that as result of theobservations said to have been made, the applicants had realapprehension that either the investigations or the trial would betainted to their prejudice – Held: The apprehension of the applicants/petitioners that justice will not be done to them is misplaced – Thepurpose of continuing mandamus is only to ensure that there is nointerference during the course of investigations from anybody,whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any otherpressure that could compromise the investigations – Yet anotherpurpose of continuing mandamus is to ensure that the InvestigatingOfficer or the Investigating Team does not deviate from the naturalcourse of investigations for whatever reason, either due to pressureor due to misdirection or some other extraneous reason – This isthe limited role of Constitutional Court in monitoring investigationsin continuing mandamus – Consequently, the apprehension thatthe observations said to have been made on 30[th] July, 2018 wouldinfluence the SIT is erroneous – Observations made by any courtcannot impact on the investigations as long as they are conductedby professionals – The SIT consist of professionals who will not beswayed by any observations made by any court during the continuingmandamus process – Mandamus.

ADismissing the applications, the Court

HELD: 1. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertainsto allegations of serious violations of the human rights of personsdescribed as insurgents. large number of such persons werekilled in operations carried out by the Army, the paramilitaryBforces and the Manipur Police. Whether the death/killing of suchpersons was justified or not is matter of investigation by theSIT. It was nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT was notconducting fair investigations into the allegations. During thehearing of EEVFAM and even after the decision was rendered onsubstantive legal and factual issues, no allegation of any bias ofCany sort or any apprehension that justice will not be done or thatanybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is only at thecontinuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised andthat too on the basis of certain observations said to have beenmade by this Court. [Paras 20-21][312-C-F]

2. Once the judicial process has begun with the filing of thefinal report or charge sheet as the case may be, the concernedcourt is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings.No one can interfere in the course of judicial proceedingsotherwise it would amount to interference in the due course ofEjustice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason thatwhen investigations are complete and final report or chargesheet is filed, the Constitutional Court keeps its hands off anyfurther progress in the matter. As far as the EEVFAM case wasconcerned, there was no allegation of any kind that any Trial Judgedealing with the case has shown lack of independence.FInterference in the due course of justice or the administration ofjustice would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore, it isinappropriate for the applicants/petitioners to harbour anyapprehension that the Trial Judge(s) would be influenced by theobservations said to have been made by this Court on 30[th] July,G2018. The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhapsunwittingly, questioning the fairness and independence of thejudiciary. [Para 26][313-E-H]

3. There can be no interference in investigations and thecourts cannot brook any interference in the judicial process. An

exception may occur, when there is an unjustified deviation fromthe natural course of investigations or illegal interference in thejudicial process. There is no basis for apprehension that theobservations said to have been made by this Court can impact onthe decisions to be taken by the SIT. The SIT is independentand so far, no allegation of unfairness has been made against thefunctioning of the SIT. Observations made by this Court or anycourt for that matter cannot impact on the investigations as longas they are conducted by professionals. The SIT consist ofprofessionals who will not be swayed by any observations madeby this Court during the continuing mandamus process.[Paras 27, 29][314-A-C; D-E]

4. The Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the ManipurPolice are made of sterner stuff and are disciplined forces strongenough to take everything in their stride. There is no material tosupport the theory of the Indian Army, paramilitary forces andthe Manipur Police being demoralised. It is only submissionmade for some unfathomable reason. The continuing mandamusmust go on and the independence and integrity of the SIT andthe judges dealing with the final reports/charge-sheets must bemaintained. Therefore, even though there is no reason for theapplicants/petitioners to entertain any doubt that the SIT or thejudiciary would be influenced by the observations said to havebeen made by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, anyobservations made or said to have been made on 30[th] July, 2018during the implementation of the orders of this Court through acontinuing mandamus are not intended to and should not in anymanner be construed as compromising the independence,integrity and fairness of the SIT and the concerned judges.Institutional integrity of the CBI and the judiciary is positivelyrequired to be maintained. [Paras 30, 31, 32][314-G-H;315-B-D]

Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 :[2014] 9 SCR 965 ; Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v.State of Gujarat (2016) 3 SCC 370 : [2016] 1 SCR56 ; Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal(2009) 6 SCC 260 : [2009] 9 SCR 194 ; Supreme CourtAdvocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India(Recusal Matter) (2016) 5 SCC 808 ; R.K. Anand v.

ARegistrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 : [2009]11 SCR 1026 – distinguished

Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v.Union of India (2016) 14 SCC 536; Naga People’sMovement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) 2BSCC 109 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 469 – referred to

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : CRL.M. P.No. 125554 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 205 of 2018E

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

With

Crl.M.P. No. 125550 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206

Fof 2018 and Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 205 & 206 of 2018.

Sachin Sharma, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.G

1. These writ petitions have been filed by some police personnelof Manipur Police under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We havebeen given to understand that these petitions have the support of fewhundred officers from the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces andManipur Police. These petitions are fall-out of the decision rendered

by us in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v.Union of India[1]and subsequent orders passed therein by way of acontinuing mandamus. The prayer in the writ petitions is for an appropriatewrit, order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said tohave been made by us which, according to the petitioners, violate theirrights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending decision inthe writ petitions, it is prayed that we should not proceed with thecontinuing mandamus in the case.

2. Interlocutory applications have also been moved in these writpetitions specifically for direction that we should recuse from hearingthese writ petitions which should be placed for consideration beforeanother Bench of this Court.

3. Submissions were made before us in the interlocutoryapplications for recusal but we find no merit in these applications andtherefore dismiss them.

The background

4. On 8[th] July, 2016 we delivered judgement in Extra-JudicialExecution Victim Families Association. v. Union of India. We notedthe allegations made in the writ petition in the following words:

“The allegations made in the writ petition concern what aredescribed as fake encounters or extra-judicial executions said tohave been carried out by Manipur Police and the Armed Forcesof the Union, including the Army. According to the police andsecurity forces, the encounters are genuine and the victims weremilitants or terrorists or insurgents killed in counter-insurgency oranti-terrorist operations. Whether the allegations are completelyor partially true or are entirely rubbish and whether the encounteris genuine or not is yet to be determined, but in any case there isa need to know the truth.

The right to know the truth has gained increasing importance overthe years. This right was articulated by the United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights in the Sixty-second Session ofthe Human Rights Commission. In study on the right to thetruth, it was stated in Para 8 that though the right had its origins inenforced disappearances, it has gradually extended to include extra-judicial executions. This paragraph reads as follows:

1(2016) 14 SCC 536

A“With the emergence of the practice of enforceddisappearances in the 1970s, the concept of the right to thetruth became the object of increasing attention frominternational and regional human rights bodies and specialprocedures mandate-holders. In particular, the ad hoc workinggroup on human rights in Chile, the Working Group on EnforcedBor Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights (IACHR) developed an importantdoctrine on this right with regard to the crime of enforceddisappearances. These mechanisms initially based the legalsource for this right upon Articles 32 and 33 of the AdditionalCProtocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12-8-1949.Commentators have taken the same approach. However,although this right was initially referred to solely within thecontext of enforced disappearances, it has been graduallyextended to other serious human rights violations, such as extra-judicial executions and torture. The Human Rights CommitteeDhas urged State party to the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights to guarantee that the victims of humanrights violations know the truth with respect to the actscommitted and know who the perpetrators of such acts were.”[ Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Study on theEright to the truth. Report of the Office of the United NationsHigh Commissioner for Human Rights; 8-2-2006. Commissionon Human Rights, Sixty-second Session, Item 17 of theprovisional agenda.]

It is necessary to know the truth so that the law is tempered withjustice. The exercise for knowing the truth mandates ascertainingwhether fake encounters or extra-judicial executions have takenplace and if so, who are the perpetrators of the human rightsviolations and how can the next of kin be commiserated with andwhat further steps ought to be taken, if any.”

5. While concluding the decision, we observed that accurate andcomplete information had not been made available in respect of each ofthe cases that the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Associationor EEVFAM had complained about. Accordingly, we observed anddirected as follows:

“Unfortunately, we have not been given accurate and completeinformation about each of the 1528 cases that the petitioners havecomplained about. Therefore, there is need to obtain and collatethis information before any final directions can be given. Thelearned amicus has told us that there are 15 cases out of 62 inwhich it has been held by the Justice Hegde Commission or bythe judicial inquiries conducted at the instance of the Gauhati HighCourt that the encounters were faked. On the other hand, NHRChas informed us that there are 31 cases out of 62 in which it hasbeen concluded that the encounters were not genuine andcompensation awarded to the next of kin of the victims or theaward of compensation is pending.

Therefore, as first step, we direct:

Of the 62 cases that the petitioners have documented, theirrepresentative and the learned amicus will prepare simple tabularstatement indicating whether in each case judicial enquiry or aninquiry by NHRC or an inquiry under the Commissions of InquiryAct, 1952 has been held and the result of the inquiry and whetherany first information report or complaint or petition has been filedby the next of kin of the deceased. We request NHRC to renderassistance to the learned amicus in this regard. We make it clearthat since magisterial enquiry is not judicial inquiry and, asmentioned above, it is not possible to attach any importance to themagisterial enquiries, the tabular statement will not includemagisterial enquiries.The representative of the petitioners and the learned amicus willrevisit the remaining cases (1528 minus 62) and carry out anidentical exercise as above. This exercise is required to beconducted for eliminating those cases in which there is noinformation about the identity of the victim or the place ofoccurrence or any other relevant detail and then present anaccurate and faithful chart of cases in simple tabular form.”

6. Subsequently, on 14[th] July, 2017[2] we took up the matter again,inter alia, for ascertaining whether the first step that we had directed inour judgement and order of 8[th] July, 2016 had been acted upon. Whileconsidering this, we recorded what could be described as the backgroundof the case in the following words:

2Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 417

A“In the present petitions, the allegation was that 1528 persons hadbeen killed in fake encounters by police personnel and personnelin uniform of the armed forces of the Union. By our judgment andorder dated 8-7-2016 [Extra Judicial Execution Victim FamiliesAssn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536: (2016) 14 SCC 578(2)] we respectfully followed the view laid down by ConstitutionBBench of this Court in Naga People’s Movement of HumanRights v. Union of India [Naga People’s Movement of HumanRights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109]. The ConstitutionBench held that an allegation of use of excessive force orretaliatory force by uniformed personnel resulting in theCdeath of any person necessitates thorough enquiry intothe incident. We were of the opinion that even the “Dosand Don’ts” and the “Ten Commandments” of the Chief ofArmy Staff believe in this ethos and accept this principle.However, after considering the submissions at law, we found thatthe documentation was inadequate to immediately order anyDinquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners and thereforedirected them to complete the documentation indicating whetherthe allegations were based on any judicial enquiry or an enquiryconducted by the National Human Rights Commission or anenquiry conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

tabular statement has since been filed by the learned counselfor the petitioners and this statement has been accepted by thelearned Amicus Curiae and no objection was raised by the Unionof India or by the State of Manipur. We therefore proceed on thebasis of the tabular statement before us.

The petitioners have been able to gather information with regardto 655 deaths out of 1528 alleged in the writ petitions. The break-up is as follows:

We have perused the tabular statement given with regard to caseswith written complaints, oral complaints and eyewitness accountsas well as family claimed cases but find that apart from simpleallegation being made, no substantive steps appear to have beentaken by either lodging first information report (FIR) or by filinga writ petition in the High Court concerned or making complaintto the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Theallegations being very general in nature, we do not think itappropriate to pass any direction for the time being in regard tothe cases concerning these written complaints, oral complaints,cases with eyewitness accounts and family claimed cases. It isnot that every single allegation must necessarily be inquired into.It must be remembered that we are not dealing with individualcases but systemic or institutional response relating toconstitutional criminal law.” (Emphasis supplied by us)

7. Thereafter, having considered the case law and submissionsmade by the learned Amicus and learned counsel for the parties includingthe learned Attorney General, we held as follows:

“Having considered the issues in their entirety, we are of the opinionthat it would be appropriate if the Central Bureau of Investigation(or CBI) is required to look into these fake encounters or use ofexcessive or retaliatory force. Accordingly, the Director of CBIis directed to nominate group of five officers to go through therecords of the cases mentioned in the three tables given above,lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the investigations into thesame by 31-12-2017 and prepare charge-sheets, wherevernecessary. The entire groundwork has already been done eitherby the Commissions of Inquiry or by Judicial Inquiry or by theGauhati or Manipur High Court or by NHRC. We leave it to theSpecial Investigation Team to utilise the material already gathered,in accordance with law. We expect the State of Manipur to extendfull cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigation Team.We also expect the Union of India to render full assistance to theSpecial Investigation Team to complete the investigation at theearliest without any unnecessary hindrances or obstacles. TheDirector of CBI will nominate the team and inform us of itscomposition within two weeks.”

A8. Notwithstanding the law laid down by Constitution Bench ofthis Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union ofIndia and the explicit directions given by this Court in Extra-JudicialExecution Victim Families Association v. Union of India [EEVFAM]the CBI was seemingly following up rather casually and taking its owntime to complete investigations, which were required to be completed byB31[st] December, 2017 and prepare charge-sheets/final reports, wherevernecessary.

9. In our order of 8[th ]January, 2018, we noted that on 23[rd] November,2017 the CBI had asked for increasing the strength of the SpecialInvestigation Team (SIT) and we acceded to that request. We notedCthat it appeared to us that the matter was not being taken up by the CBIand the SIT with the seriousness that it deserves.

10. Thereafter the EEVFAM case was adjourned couple oftimes and on 27[th] July 2018 we observed that no final report had beenfiled but approval was granted in respect of one of them on 24[th] July,D2018 and in respect of another, approval was granted on 26[th] July, 2018.Two other cases were pending for approval. We also observed that theinvestigations were taking an unduly long time and that we were notsatisfied with the progress made by the CBI so far. Consequently, werequired the Director of the CBI to let us know the steps that must beEtaken to ensure that the investigations are completed early and finalreports are filed as expeditiously as possible. For this purpose, we requiredthe personal appearance of the Director of the CBI on 30[th] July, 2018.

11. On 30[th] July, 2018 the Director of the CBI appeared in Court.He informed us that two charge-sheets had been filed in which thereFwere 14 accused persons and all of them had been charged with anoffence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code readwith Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (murder and criminalconspiracy). It was also pointed out that these accused have also beencharged with an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IndianPenal Code (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or givingGfalse information to screen offender). He also informed us that somemore final reports/charge-sheets would be filed making total of sevenfinal reports/charge-sheets. On 30[th] July, 2018 we also recorded thesubmission of learned counsel for EEVFAM that since the accusedpersons have been charged with offences punishable as above, theyHwould normally be arrested and that where investigations are going on inrespect of similar offences, custodial interrogation would be necessary.We recorded the submission but left it entirely to the discretion of theDirector of the CBI and the SIT to take call on whether arrests shouldbe made and whether custodial interrogation should be carried out. Wemay mention that we have not been informed whether and if, as of now,any arrests have been made and whether and if any custodial interrogationhas been carried out.

The present applications

12. It is in the above background that during the continuingmandamus hearing of the petition filed by EEVFAM on 30[th] July, 2018certain oral observations were made and attributed to us. We need notgo into the correctness of the text or otherwise of the observations madeor into the context in which they were made. The fact of the matter isthat the observations said to have been made were widely reported inthe press with varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. Theobservations led to the filing of the present two writ petitions. The prayermade in both the writ petitions is identical. We are not, for the present,concerned with the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petitions orthe grant of final relief to the petitioners herein. What we are concernedwith are the applications for directions moved in both the writ petitions.The prayer made in these applications reads as follows:

“direct that the Hon’ble Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. JusticeMadan B. Lokur and Hon’ble Mr Justice Uday Umesh Lalithearing of the present writ petition recuse itself and that the writpetition be placed for hearing by another Bench of this Hon’bleCourt in accordance with law.”

13. In the applications, the petitioners make reference to variousnewspaper reports and it is submitted that the reported observationscoming from the highest court of the country have created realapprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the impartial manner inwhich EEVFAM is being heard by this Court. It is further submitted thathearing that case by another Bench of this Court is essential to subservethe cause of justice but the prayer should not be construed as castingaspersions on the Bench. It is further submitted and reiterated that thereis real apprehension in the mind of the applicants about the manner inwhich the Bench is proceeding with the case and it is submitted that theapprehension is not based on any ipse dixit but is based on reports of theproceedings held on 30[th] July, 2018 widely reported in the print and

Aelectronic media, which clearly shows that the ‘guilt’ of each and everyone of the applicants/petitioners has been prejudged, though only policereport under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hasbeen filed. The applicants/petitioners have referred to few decisions/case laws in the application and their learned counsel, during the courseof hearing of the application, referred to few other decisions. All thisBwas supplemented by written submissions. The principal decisions reliedon were: (i) Manoj Narula v. Union of India[3], (ii) UsmanganiAdambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat[4], (iii) Captain Amarinder Singhv. Prakash Singh Badal[5] and (iv) Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter).[6]SomeCdecisions of foreign jurisdictions have also been referred to and reliedon.

Submissions

14. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Unionof India supported the prayer made in the applications but did not fileDany written submissions. It was orally submitted by the learned AttorneyGeneral that the observations made by this Court had demoralisingeffect on the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Policeor in any event, it had affected the morale of these forces in their fightagainst insurgency.E

15. In response to these submissions, it was contended by learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of EEVFAM that the allegations made bythe petitioners were reckless and without reading the articles in thenewspapers. It was also submitted that the allegations hurled at the Courtwere of serious nature and ought to have been made after carefulFstudy and cross-checking the facts from those who were present incourt, but nothing of that sort seems to have been done in the presentcase. The learned counsel then placed reliance upon few decisions ofthis Court on the subject of recusal of judges from case. Apart fromgiving his interpretation to the decisions cited by learned counsel for theapplicants/petitioners, it was submitted by learned counsel for EEVFAMGthat the attempt of the applicants/petitioners was to put pressure on thisCourt to keep its hands off the case.

3(2014) 9 SCC 14(2016) 3 SCC 3705(2009) 6 SCC 260H6(2016) 5 SCC 808

16. Learned Amicus submitted that the applications filed by theapplicants/petitioners were mala fide and amounted to gross forumshopping. It was submitted that the applications as well as the writ petitionsbe dismissed with exemplary costs. It was submitted that even thoughthe learned Attorney General supported the prayer for recusal, he clarifiedthat none of the parties were questioning the integrity or fairness in theinvestigations carried out by the SIT appointed by the Director of theCBI on the directions of this Court. She further submitted that thecontentions urged on behalf of the petitioners were based on selectivereading of the news reports and even assuming what was attributed tothis Court was correct, the observations could not hamper or influencethe trial of the officers who are charge-sheeted. She pointed out that onthe issue of arrest of the accused persons, this Court had explicitly leftthe matter to the discretion of the Director of the CBI and the SIT. Shesubmitted that learned counsel for the petitioners had duty as an officerof the court to refrain from making allegations of bias on flimsy groundsparticularly in view of the order passed on 30[th] July, 2018. Learned Amicusreferred to certain decisions on the subject of recusal and submitted thatgiven the peculiar circumstances of the case, monitoring the investigationby the CBI or the SIT was necessary. Finally, it was submitted that if thepresent applications are allowed, then in all cases where judges of thisCourt make enquiries which are probing or even inconvenient to one ofthe parties in the matter, they could be compelled to recuse themselves.Learned Amicus drew attention to R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi HighCourt.[7]

17. The effective prayer of the applicants/petitioners is that inview of the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30[th]July, 2018 the investigations should be monitored by another set of judgesof this Court. Our recusal is sought on the ground that as result of theobservations said to have been made, the applicants/petitioners have areal apprehension that either the investigations or the trial (if any) wouldbe tainted to their prejudice.

18. Having heard the learned Attorney General, learned counseland learned Amicus and having gone through the written submissionsfiled, we are of the view that the apprehension of the applicants/petitionersthat justice will not be done to them is misplaced if not unfounded.

ADecision

19. The decisions referred to and relied upon have been fullyconsidered by us. The discussion on recusal has been exhaustively dealtwith in the cited decisions and there is nothing to add to it. But we finda crucial distinguishing feature in the case of EEVFAM and the citedBcases.

20. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertains to allegationsof serious violations of the human rights of persons described asinsurgents. large number of such persons were killed in operationscarried out by the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police.CWhether the death/killing of such persons was justified or not is matterof investigation by the SIT. It is nobody’s case that the CBI or the SITwas not conducting fair investigations into the allegations. On the contrary,the learned Attorney General submitted that the integrity or fairness ofthe investigations were not in question. As mentioned above, no onedisputed this.D

21. The distinguishing feature is this: The substantive legal andfactual issues raised in EEVFAM have already been decided by us andwhat remains is the continuing mandamus requiring implementation ofthe orders of the Court. During the hearing of EEVFAM and even afterthe decision was rendered on substantive legal and factual issues, noEallegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will notbe done or that anybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is onlyat the continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and thattoo on the basis of certain observations said to have been made by thisCourt.

22. What is pending at the continuing mandamus stage is theimplementation of the orders of the court which necessitate fairinvestigation by the CBI and the SIT constituted by the Director of theCBI. There is no allegation of any nature with respect to the impartialityand integrity of the SIT. Indeed, the learned Attorney General made itGclear that no one was disputing the capability, expertise and fairness ofthe CBI and the investigations carried out by the SIT.

23. Even during the hearing of the applications and in the writtensubmissions, no doubt has been cast on the integrity and fairness of theinvestigations. In any event, we make it clear that the law of the land is

quite explicit that no one, and that means no one, can interfere in theinvestigations being carried out by the Investigating Officer or anInvestigating Team. This law is well settled and does not need any re-consideration. The purpose of continuing mandamus is only to ensurethat there is no interference during the course of investigations fromanybody, whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or anyother pressure (including, as it seems, ‘judicial pressure’) that couldcompromise the investigations. It is only when the Investigating Officeror the Investigating Team is given free hand that the investigations willbe meaningful, fair and with integrity.

24. Yet another purpose of continuing mandamus is to ensurethat the Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team (as the casemay be) does not deviate from the natural course of investigations forwhatever reason, either due to pressure or due to misdirection or someother extraneous reason. This is the limited role of ConstitutionalCourt in monitoring investigations in continuing mandamus.

25. Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said tohave been made by this Court on 30[th] July, 2018 would influence the SITis erroneous.

26. It is equally clear that once the judicial process has begunwith the filing of the final report or charge sheet as the case may be, theconcerned court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings.No one, and that again means no one, can interfere in the course ofjudicial proceedings otherwise it would amount to interference in thedue course of justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reasonthat when investigations are complete and final report or charge sheetis filed, the Constitutional Court keeps its hands off any further progressin the matter. We are fortunate to have an independent judiciary and asfar as the EEVFAM case is concerned there has been no allegation ofany kind that any Trial Judge dealing with the case has shown lack ofindependence. Interference in the due course of justice or theadministration of justice would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore,it is inappropriate for the applicants/petitioners to harbour anyapprehension that the Trial Judge(s) would be influenced by theobservations said to have been made by this Court on 30[th] July, 2018.The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps unwittingly, questioningthe fairness and independence of the judiciary.

A27. The upshot of this discussion is that there can be nointerference in investigations and the courts cannot brook any interferencein the judicial process. An exception may occur as we have noticedabove, when there is an unjustified deviation from the natural course ofinvestigations or illegal interference in the judicial process. Such situationwould be rare and would have to be dealt with on case by case basisBand it is to pre-empt this that the Constitutional Courts monitorinvestigations on extraordinary occasions. Consequently, the apprehensionexpressed by the applicants/petitioners that due to the observations saidto have been made by this Court there would be interference in theinvestigations by the SIT all interference in the due judicial process byCthe courses not real or justified.28. The decisions cited before us by learned counsel and learnedAmicus do not deal with or concern the situation confronting us.

29. few other contentions have been urged before us by learnedcounsel for the applicants/petitioners. It is submitted that the observationsDsaid to have been made by this Court can impact on the decisions to betaken by the SIT. We do not find any basis for any such apprehension.The SIT is independent and so far, no allegation of unfairness has beenmade against the functioning of the SIT. Observations made by thisCourt or any court for that matter cannot impact on the investigations asElong as they are conducted by professionals and we have no doubt thatthe SIT does consist of professionals who will not be swayed by anyobservations made by this Court during the continuing mandamus process.30. It was also submitted and this submission was supported bythe learned Attorney General that the Indian Army, the paramilitary forcesFand the Manipur Police have been demoralised by the observations madeby this Court. This is rather overbroad submission. In any event, in ouropinion, it should be clear to everyone that officers and personnel of theIndian Army, paramilitary forces and the State Police are made of muchsterner stuff than is sought to be projected and they can hardly bedemoralised by observations said to have been made by anybody. It isGunfortunate that bogey of demoralization of the Indian Army,paramilitary forces and the State Police is being raised. We are unableto comprehend the reason for this. As mentioned earlier, the IndianArmy, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police are made of sternerstuff and are disciplined forces strong enough to take everything in theirHstride. To contend that some observations said to have been made by

this Court have demoralized the Indian Army, the paramilitary forcesand the Manipur Police is suggestive of weakness in them. Be that asit may, this is really stretching the argument to the vanishing point.

31. That apart, there is no material to support the theory of theIndian Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police beingdemoralised. It is only submission made for some unfathomable reason.

32. The continuing mandamus must go on and the independenceand integrity of the SIT and the judges dealing with the final reports/charge-sheets must be maintained. Therefore, even though there is noreason for the applicants/petitioners to entertain any doubt that the SITor the judiciary would be influenced by the observations said to havebeen made by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, we make itabsolutely clear that any observations made or said to have been madeon 30[th] July, 2018 during the implementation of the orders of this Courtthrough continuing mandamus are not intended to and should not inany manner be construed as compromising the independence, integrityand fairness of the SIT and the concerned judges. Institutional integrityof the CBI and the judiciary is positively required to be maintained.

33. We see no merit in these applications and they are accordinglydismissed. The writ petitions be listed for preliminary hearing on26[th] November, 2018 at 2 PM.

Devika Gujral

Applications dismissed.