Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Subramanian Swamy's public interest litigation

On April 9, Swamy had also filed public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India.

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Subramanian Swamy's public interest litigation

  1. 1. @. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA cryrL APPELLATE JU RISDICTIION I.A.No.- of 2018 r, IN! CIWL APPEAL No'10660 of 2101 !;r the Matter Of: Crenter of Public Interest Litigation & Ors Versus Union of India & Ors And !n the Matter gf: Dr. Subramanian SwamY ...Intenrener i Applicant 1. Application for Direction with affidavit. 2. Annryure A-1 Copy of order dated 06.05.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No' 10660 of 2010. 3. Annexure A-2 Copy of order dated 07.LL.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010. 4. Annexure A-3 Copy of order dated 01.05.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010. 5. Annexure A-4 Copy of order dated L2.03.20t8 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010, t 10-11 12-15 16-19 NEW DELHI DATED: $ t [tR $t Responde 20-?,5 Through: DR. SLIBRAMANIAN SWAMY AF,PLICANT.IN-PERSON AB-L4, PANDARA ROAD, NEW DELHI T-Aa
  2. 2. ,--,# Dr IN THE SU E CIWL APPE I,A. CIVIL APP In the Matter Of: Center of Public Interest Versus Union of India & Ors And . Subramanian SwamY Appli The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Judges of the SuPreme Coutt Most RespectfullY Showeth : 1. That the APPlicant is a the above matter. 2. This Hon'ble Couft was eased in 2G Spectrum Case a I.A. NO further IA no. t32429 of 20t7 fl before this Hon'ble Cou 3. This Hon'ble Court has To a& India from time to time for expeditious in the TEJ RT OF IND Directions The Hqt Applicant Parliament a enteftain the 78 of 201,5 in by the direct[ons IN No L ICTION of 2O10 Petitipner(s) .. RespQndent(s) Applic{tion rvenampd of the an Irfteruener in No. 36 of 2010 Mfxis case. A is afso pending the above matter
  3. 3. --w 7 zG ispectrum case / Maxis-Aircel case, being monitorect by this Hon'ble Court in the above proceedings' 4. Vide an Order dated 06.05.2011, the Hon'ble Suprreme Couft was pleased to observe as under- ,,In the main case i.e. civit Appeal No.1066;0 of 2'010 titled ,,center for Public Interest Litigation and ohhers v. union of India and others", this court had, on 16.3.,2011, issued the following direction: ,,while adiourning the case, we make it dear th,zt no one including-the newspapers shall interfere wiilh the fwnctioning of the cBI team and the officers of the Enforcement -oirirbrit" who are investigating what ha's been described as 2-G scam and the Court witl take serittus cog'nizance of any endeavour made by any person or gnoup of persons in this regard." Shri Rajeshwar SinEh, Assistant Director of Ertforcement in the Directirate of enfiriemenA who is investigatiing the case with reference to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (for short, "the Act') issued summons dated 2'2"2011 and so.s.zotl to the'Managing Director of M/s, .Sahara Prime city Ltd. and M/ s. Indh Cimmercial Corporation ,Ltd. under Sedion 50(2) and (3) of the Act requiring him to dpp€7r along with the documents mentioned in the schedule eppended to the summons, on 5,5.2011, a communication was sent t'o shri Rajeshwar singh by one shri sybodh Jain, who des'cribed himself as reiortei of Sahara Salnay, asking him to ansl'yer 2!i questions with an indication that Sihara News Networp is planning to do a series of storie:g based on the documents allegedly in its possession, ",/ shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counse'l representing the C.B.L and the Erirrrtement Directorate in Civ'il Appeal No.10660 of 2010 submitted that all the questions contained in the communication of shri subodh Jain are absolutely ,7ersonal tq shri Rajeshwar Singh and are intended to threaten him with adverse publicity aiparentty because he has ,issued s;ummons to the Maiaging Oir*rto, of ine organisation' S,hri Venugopal then produce[ two sealed envelopes and statttd that the same contain the answers prepared by shri Rajes;hwar s'ingh to the
  4. 4. qs" 25 questions. The sealed envelopes were opened, we have perused the answers prepared by Shri Rajeshw'ar Singl' We are prima facie ,satisfied that an attempt has been made to interfere with the investigation being cortducted by Shri Rajeshwar Singh in what his been described as 2G .9cam and related matteis by trying to pressurize him no't to proceed with the investigation qua certain individuals. Therefore, wct take suo motu cognizance and direct issue of notice"' A cppy of the said Orderr dated 06'05.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court is at Annexure A-1 (Paqe No. 10-11)' 5. vide order dated 7.LL.20L2, in an IA 7120L2 preferred by the Invrestigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate, this Hon'ble Court was further pleased to observe that- .t.'...'...Thedocumentsannexedwiththisapplication show that every possible effort has been made to interfere with the investigation being conducted by'shri Rajeshwar singh on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. Th; filing of Criminal Misc. ffrit Petition NoJ752012 (PIL.) in Rllahabad High court and making of simiiar complaint to the Principal Secretarry, Home of whichcognizancehasbeentakenbytheltate Government andl the direction has been issuerd to Additional Director General of Police, Econclmic Offence Investigation organization, Lucknow irrdicate that attempis are being made to prevent the applicant from conducting the investigation fearlessly. All this ,orima facie amoi.rnts to violation of the direction given b'y this Court on 06.05.2011. In the meanwhile, the proceedings of criminal Miscr. writ Petition No.77512312 (PIL) titled Vinod Kunrar vs. Union of Indira and others pending before the Allahabad High Court lt Rltununad shall remain stayed. Are also direct the Government of Uttar Pradesh and all o'fficers subordinate to it not to proceed with any enquiry or investigation into the complaint made by sl'rri Manv'endra
  5. 5. @ 4 Pratap singh, Advocate on 15.09.2012 or any similar complaint which may be made by any other person against the aPPlicant," A copy of the said Order dated 7.IL.20LZ passed by this Hon'ble Court is at Annexure A-2 (Paoe No' 12'15)' 6. Vidr: anotherf Order dated 01.05.2014, this Hqn'ble Court was pleilsed to observe that- ..Dr.RajeshwarSingh,DeputYDirector,Enforcement Directorate, who is conducting the investigation of Aircel Maxis case is directed to continue with the investigation along with two other Investigating Officers till the completion of the trial." A copy of the said Order dated 01.05.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Corurt is at Annexure A-3 (Page No' 16-19)' Vicle further order dated 12.03,2018 this Hon'ble couft was pleased to direct that the investigattns shall be completecl within six months in all the cases and on all the aSpects of the matter and no stone shiap be left unturned in t#s r.gard and all guilty shall be booked. A copy of the said Order dated L2.03.20L8 passed by this Hon'ble Corurt is at Annexure A-4 (Page No. 20-25)' It is thus a matter of record that constant effofts have been made to anryhow derail the progress of investigations in tlre instant case, by lelrelling scandalous, false, motivated, baseless and frivolous allegation s lnter alia af accumulating property and wealth, against the Investigating Officer. Therefore, time and again necessary 7. B.
  6. 6. -@ 5 9. direrctions were required to be issued by this Hon'ble Court in the interrest Of justice and to ensure Smooth and fair investigation into the case. The Applicant is constrairned to move this Application for seeking directions to the CBI and Enforcement Directorate so as to ensure smpoth and fair investig4tion intO the case, which is again being sourght to be derailed by certain Individuals mainly one Shri Upendra Rai with the aid of his suborditnate Sh. Subodh Jain and other unl<nown persons, who afe acting in conspiracy to flout the Orders pa:;sed by this Hon'ble Court and to resist the Investigating Officer to continue to investigate as directed by this Hon',ble court. They are ha,ring unholy nexus with undisclosed politicians, bureaucrats and corporates under Investigations. It is also a matter of record that in past various complaints against the same Investigating officer sh. Rajeshwar singh, have been ins;tigated by them, which were found to be baseless and void by the Cerntral Bureau of Investigation (C49, Enforcement Directorate (ED), and the Central Vigilanpe Commission (CVC). These results are mr:ntioned in IA No,7 of 20t2 and IA no. 1127t]6 of 2017 filed by said Sh. Raje$hwar Singh. It is reliably learnt that now again similar efforts are being made by them to derail the investigation into Aircel Maxis case' which is at a very crucial stage. Attachments made by the said Investigating Olificer who has an impqccable integrity and work efficiency record, 10. 11.
  7. 7. -& 6 L2. have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMt$. A Connplaint through one Sh. Anil Galgali of Mumbai appears to have been circulatf by them tQ various departments with sinister motives to l.arnish his unblemished record on one hand, and to derail the investigations on the other. Significantly, Order rJated 06.05.2011 records that explanation to each of the earlier 25 questions put to the Investigating Officer Are already taken on record and are in a sealed cover before this Hon'ble Court. The said Shri Upendra Rai claims himself to be a journalist, but from the details available on the Internet it appears that presently he is not even having accreditation from Press Informati,on Bureau (PIB). I The Applicant submits that as per his reliable source, name of the saird Shri Upendra Rai is irnlre list of undesirable person in the black list i.e. Undesirable Contact Men (UCM)' As per Article dated 13,06.2012 published in India Today under the he,ading'CBI puts 23 names on dubious middlemen list', in officiial parlance, the Inclividuals are termed undesirable contact men and the CBI is tas;ked with zeroing on them. The objective of drawing up the confidential UCM list is to alert vanious Governmenrt Departments not to consider these people from accreditation or as representatives of firms. Furthermore, the purpose is to warn the GOvernment Officials to'avoid associating with them socially and acce;rting hospitality as well as gifts from them'. 13.
  8. 8. -& 7 L4. The Applicant submits that it is trite that such persons in UCM have questionable sources of inCome and accumulate huge unaccounted wealth. The Applicant submits that the said Shri Upendra Rai is also carrying and uses a highly sensitive Airport Entry Card allegedly issued by Bureau of Civil Aviation and Security (BCAS), which probably has been obtained on false and fabricated papers. Despite facing Contempt Proceedings in the above case' the said Shri Upendra Rai and his associates are again active and are trying to scuttle the investigations by circulating fals;e, frivolous and pseudonymous complaints against the Investigating Qfficer for harassing and embarrassing him, for personal pecuniary gains and questionable motives. In rriew of the above, this urgent IA has been preferred in the above case for seeking necessary directions in the interest of justice. The pr€rs€r'rt applipation is moved so that the independent investigation I being monitored by this Hon'ble Court may not ber impeded and the true and correct factual position is placed before this Hon'ble Court by the CBI and ED after due investigation into tlne conspiracy and cre:dentials of said Shri Upendra Rai and his associates. PRAYER In the above premise and in the interest of Justice it is most res;pectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: 15. 16. 17,
  9. 9. /s (a) Direct CBI and ED bound manner Upendra Rai and with undisclosed pol IS, Investigations; accreditation; of ing and Card allegedly a report in ting into the IB card using the by Bureau of ils disclosed and thereof; Securities; and the amassed by him w t the (b) In the meantime, CBI please be di note about Shri Men (UCM) in a on the list of Pass any approp erlorders in circumstances of Rai (c) New Delhi. Dated: 8 irs to unravel his un in a time said Shri nexus under having Entry and assets furnish a Contact Ai Av
  10. 10. *& IN THE S Civil I. Civil rN iltF I{ATTER OF: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC I LII-IGATION & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & OR DR. SUBRAMANIAN S AB-14,PANDARA ROA NEW DELHI. I, Dr. Subramanian S Subramanian, R/o. solemnly affirm and 1. That I am the fully ilcquainted competent to That Paras 7-17 my knowledge. 3, That the last pa VERIFICATION: VeTifi 2018 that the facts to my personal know noiihing material is co , 2. PREM COURT OF I Appell te Jurisdicti of 2018. No. In peal N . 10660 of TER AMY amy, a ed 76 years, 14, P ndara Road, rea under: ica in the afo with t e matter r the tion forapp is the rayer. atN Delhi on ras 1-17ted in ge, no part of tlnis a led erefrom. I APPELI-ANT PPNDENTSRES APPLI .NN.PERSON Sitarama hi hereby . and am and fully re true to DEPONENT s_ flay of April einabdve are true DEPONENT
  11. 11. ,^K (*' ITEM NO.MM-i: SUPREME CONTEMPT PETITION(C)N0,224 OF 2011 CIVII APPEAL N0(s), 10560 0t 2010 MJESHIIAR S].NGH VERSUS SUBR}TA ROY SAHARA AND OTHERS Date:06,/05/',2011 COMM : Th:.s Petititon HONIBIE MR. JUSTICE G,S, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK T For Petj.tioner (s)f Mr, Mr. Mr. Mr, Mr, Mr, Ms. For Respondernt (s) Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr f f or Raj iv Sonam S ldharth Gaurav Kej Keshav Moh resPonden C.D,Sin UPON hearing counsel the OR In Lhe main case i..e, 2010 titled "Cente! for Public others v, Union of India and on 16.3.2011, issued the following d "!ihile adjourning the case, h'e no one including the newspapers witli tire functioning of the CBI off:lcer:s of t,he Enforcement fiir investigaling what has been des ' and th€J Court will lake serious endeavour made by any person or i n t'h i c roaa rr{ rl Shri Rajeshwar Enforcement. in lhe Directorate of invesLigatirtg the case with referenc of Money Laundering Acl, 2002 (for s issued siurnmons dated 2,2, Managing Dir:ector of M/s. Sahara Pr $. India Commercia] c0 RECORD H, P. RA Indira Gopal S Anirudh Hari sh responden rhcsvi D: ralrh nd Adrr Adv, Court ER viI Appea Inte!est recLion I keitc orate -tL^! -^!flEq qt roup of t,o the tr d RT O PROCEED I ar A. S, G, a, Adv. nhre (r iwaI, Adv r Adv, nos, I a sEcTI0N,XIV ]NDI,A PETITIONER ( nespolaent ( for heBring toda rcrr fhi the following N0.10660 ot tigation and ^a!.-r L-I VUg! L llegt -L^11 i-l^ team and t ai i1, t.i-.,l ation r that, fere of any r^-l n1' rtnr t 'rfhe fil) 30,3.201i and M,/ . undgr n. TO Director
  12. 12. ^& (.l 5Ci2) and (:i) of the Act requi with the documgnls mentioned i nrrhl iqh Ra j r:shwar tnt qf nrr, n Qi nnh Aec t inn him I commun tca L t-i -ll VdJllt Saha s of sto possesSi0n Enforceme 0 submitte sation. s and st anSwe rs ied thal th fho in ht4lax utd L Lgl D th the r The vlal r counsef clients pr09 D LdII L Snrr ri Ma A rnr: ) answer 25 guest,ions with an i ication 'l to the summens. 0n 5,5,2011, a Rajeshwar Singh by one Shri Su himsel f as renorter Necwork is Srlaning to do a ser thr-. documents allegedly in its conducted by Shri Ra described as 2G Scam and relat pressurize irim not to proceed w qua certain individuals, cognizance and direct issue of Shri Gaurav Kejr petition ancl lhe main case, his of M/s. Sahara India TV Network questions contained in the ication Ja:Ln are absiolutelv personal t (hri P:ia and are internded to threaten with Shri K.K. Ve I, rFhraqonf i nfl i'ha a ll T an^ in Civil Appeal No,10660 ,of 20 tnrt>roni" lrr fronerrco Managing Director of t.he organ then produce:d two sealed envel same cont,ain the ans Singh to t.he 25 questions, opened. We have perused Rajeshwar Sj.ngh, We are prima facie satis been made to interfere w Sidharth Luthra, Iearned senior on behalf of resDondent Nos. L ) Advocate accepts notice for Reply affidavils Further affj.davi: of Shri Rajes rlithin next trlro feeks, List the Case on ilth Ju Shri Luthra says that du y, 20LL ng the L^ WAI Singh NoIDA, U, of lsahara India Commercial Cor ratron Indj.a Maes Communication, NOIDA U.P, wi]I Dirr:ctorale, Government of Ind The ernvelopes produced taken on record. Th reseal the same. ' The (4.D, Sharrur) Cour! Master (Phoolan Wa Court appear al,ong le appended o described Samay, t Sahara News es based on I o:rnad cani nr i ni 16^i^rrl-6 that all the f ahri crrhnAh r Qi nah nuhl { ni trr issued summons led that by Shri sealed prepared n attempt has tigalj.on being trrri nd l-a stigation fore, we take suo Advocate viled J -- ni ro^i-^r Venugopal are rs are dlrect,ed to has done, bny and noL t{ t{ fha Raj eshwar envelopeo htr ahri Singh in what, l,rithin filed y vr LrlaP employee a unll Sahara do 0r ^Ah^arn
  13. 13. :&' v'aT/ ITEM NO,30I SUPREME CIVIT CENTER FOR Plt,E ORS, VERSUS UN]ON OF INDIA E ORS, HONIBIE MR, HON'BLE MR, For Appeliarrt (s) c0 RECORD RT PROC N0 (s) , called o SINGHVI RADHAKRIS Bhushan, Sachdeva re Pannrf ne Tax Dep "/ I (For consideralion of the $ta Enforcement Dixectorate and I Datei 01/11./2012 This Appea] CORAM : JUSTICE G,S, JUSTICE K, S, Mr. Prashan Mr, K. K. Ven Mr, Hari Mr, Pra Mr, Santo$h Kumar Tr Fnr Focnnnrlc,nf /c ror ubl ano tsu N. Salve' P. Raval, Nanda/ Sankarana N j.gam, Mr, Harin Mr. Raj iv Mr, Gopal Ms, Padna For RR No,4 Mr,Mukul Gupta MrTA Mr,V.N, Sr, Adv. Kumar/ Sanghi, Mrs . Anil Katiyar, Mr I Q tn Mr. Ritin ndhiok, Rai, Adv. Mr, Rit,e Mr Di rrtr Dr, Subraman am swamy/ Kumar S Satya M lra GargrMr Mr Mr Navin Anupam Mr, Gaurav Ms, Swikr Mr. Siddhar Mr, Devvrat, Das, A. a Kumar S ej riwaI, ni, A,0.R i Singhan S i ngIa, A, O. R. SECT]ON XIV INDIA NGS 60 0F 2010 Appe]lant (s Respgndent (s submitted by the rtment and office r) for hearing today. Adv. Adv. thi, A,0.R, v. tamr yanan, Adv. ntervenor- in-Pets rma, A.0.R. 1L ri,{NExURF }q-? t'
  14. 14. ^,8 '{ UPON hearinq counsel I,A,No.,,...,.0f 2012 in Con of 2010 As soon as the p pending issues arising out of t Shri K,K.Verrugopal, learned sen of Investigertion and the Enfo on behalf of the petitioner in which the following substantive rr1 fli ronl- f hc cf :rr PELIE1ON NO, I IJ/ZULI a h: -^^t FL^ i-- L , Vf r e9 q LtrE rrrry llisc.lirit Petition No Allahabad as a par nrnnaarl i naq r ? nironi Fho cf Offences l,ling of the clirections contained ConLemnor/Respondent Shri Venugopal re application to show that cons browbeat an officer who is Enfo.rcement DirecLorate in one o We have perused the scrutinized lhe annexed document detal.Ied order in the cont,emPt "In the main case i.e' Civ for Prrblic Interest Litiga ot.her$", this Court had, "While adjourning the including the the CBI team and the are investigaEing wha Cour! wiII take seri person or group of pe Shri Rajeshwar Singh, Directorate of Enfo 4. I oir..t the 1mp Secretbry Home' G refere,nc{ Lo the Pieventi 'rthe Act") issued summons Di.recLor of M/s. Sahara CorporaLion ltd. under to appear along with the to the surunons. 0n 5.5.2011, a corununicati Shri. Slubodh Jain, who de askinq him to answer 25 Network is planning to do he Court RDER Petition r ngs order counsel t- amnf Pa ayers h of all prT. haf^ eadment 11 5 / 2012 y-Cont u nf fhc f ha I al adment o rnmeng the rred Lo e fforts i na i n tha f: verments . 0n 6, i I i ^n J nyytrdr ion and 16,3,201 UqDg, rs shall i has been cogn 1 z c ln s is lant t '.'h^ iUt Eed 2,2,2 ion 50 (2) umen E s l.,as sent ibed himse stions wiL cari oc nf the fpllowing N0,224 of 2011 in nced for conslde by this Court ring for the rate handed over tion (CiviI) No. been nade: ings in Crimi the High Court of f the Petitione! DTT.I hafnra l'hc IJ /Respondent in iry initi.ated by tar Pradesh purs r of 10.10,2Q12i Sri R.M. Srivasta of U. P, as t proceedings. " the documents fi re being made tigat,ion on of 2G case. lained in the a .20llt this Cour same reaos a5 u .10660 of 2010 ti llh i ^-D V r Vlllvll issued the followi make it clear terfere wit,h the f t,he Enforcement Di as 2-G e of any endeavoul c rcae rd ll rector of Enfo investigating t underlng Aet, 2002 1l and 30,3.f011 to City t d. and M/s. I (3) of the Act tioned in lhe to Shrl RaJe$h',|at s f as reporter of an indication that stories based on t3 C.A,No.l 00u 10. 1z, irr'l appllca aF )n11 Misc. Crimi Court Ito with harags €aF catlon had 1 erl !l India direct L ll9 t,ioning fha 10, on dI tha and fha and er nd and by 1n tho fthcase Lhe Comroer IdI ing by one II Sahara
  15. 15. I allpoodlv in its nossessi $hri K,K. Venugopal, Iea and the Enforcenent Di submit.ted that all th; Shri Subodh .Iain are abso are int,e[ded to threaten .l ne hasi lgsued sumnons to ShrL Venugopal then prod same contai.n the answers questj.ons, The seaLed en answers prepared by Shri I,|e arer prima facie sat,i int.erfere with the invest Singh in what has been de trv'i na f n nrcssrrri ze him certai.n individuals. The issue of notice, Shri (iaurav KeiriwaL, Ad scnior nnrrnsel A.aenfs n^f Shri f' fl (i nnh Adrrnc:fo RepIy affidavits be filed Rajesirwar Singh may be fil LisL the case on llth The errvelopes Court, Masters done, " ,luI dur produced by rrc di rcniad spnt nr Lions con with Managi ied rhat at,ion bei ribed as Lo ce thin six wi !hin 2011, fho ne lo Shri Luthra says that m>i n r':co hi c nl i onferilqJrr ,aot, rrJo vrrLrruJ any emp Network, NOIDA, U.P, - a u it of Ltd. and Sahara India Corununica publish any slory or pr Assistant Di.lector, Enfor EUI The documents annexed with effo::t has been made to interfe Shri Rajeshwar Singh on behalf o of Criminal Mlsc.!{rit Petit.ion and making of simj.Iar complainl cognj.zance has been taken by the been issued to Additional Direc ' Investigation Organizalj.on, Luck Ll ^ ---lrrrD ayyr with the the Enfo .11 5 / 2At2 the Pri r Genera indica pondenLs Ldr y, to prevent the applicant from rn9 lhis prima facie amounts to viola ion of th on 06.05.201,1. Issue notice to the Drrdc ch l'hr'^rrdh Dri nni ne I (on n-^*l l- -/l{}l^*UqO Lf I fll OLIUI LlVll. In [he meanwhile' t,he VinodPetit,ion No.175120L2 (PIt) titl pendi,ng before the Allahabad t.le also direct lhe nment subordinate to it not to proceed rth any Civil Appeal No.1 ined in the fua L f r-- al to Shri erse publicify try Director of the I representi the C 660 of organisa ted thated envelopes and s pared by Shri Rajeshw4r S wer opened. 9{e have ngh. perused eshwar S on be Ls no with the in t igat.ion ke suo motu cogni and an attemPt has!afa.l hrr Scam and relat ing Shri Sidharth 1f of rospondent j.ce for respondent iRa rra L LE thra, ks. Furlher affi two weeks. ncy of thls peti on and yee of M/s. S a India Commercia n, NoIDA, U,P. wi ning Shri Ra r orate, Governnent India. ugopal are faken India Corpora not do same, The need reco!d, I has ation show that nvest,igat,ion being i I)i ra^f^rrl-6 PIt) in Allahabad High ofipal Secreta4y, rnnent and the UN resea l ction n AFFnf Dnl ino. v*-vv, that aENenpts are investigation fear directlon given by being essIy. this re alen l'ho q returnable on ?q 11 y!vv i nac aF t^r vs. Union of Indi and shatrI stayed Ut,tar Pradeqh and or invQstlgat rt ott .Lr into & Singh 2010 -and use ion. th^utttr ZJ the gua a^l- t fha TV poss ofU Misc. rle by ng '!t, ch I
  16. 16. ^$F $ lr' co:{rpl;rint n;rde by Shri Manvendr any similar conplaint which may applicant,. Civil Appeal. No.10660 of 20i0 Learned Additional containing Progress RePort. da cases: 1 . CBI Case No. RC 2, CBI Case No.RC 3. CBI Case No.RC The Registry of the received frc,m the Central Vigil Both the envel sel Pratap S be made an I i ni f nr 29,r0.20 Advocate on other perso 5.09.201 againstv or the Let t,his LA. be I ed on 29 11 )i1 ) To be taken up al 2 00 P.M. the report and gave rePIY to ce For further conside case t^/ill ber Eaken up on 08'11. The CourL Masters a separate se:rled envelopes. The (Satish K.Yadav) Court Masler ral produced in relation lo 045 (2G SpecErum 022 (Airce1 Maxis 024 (AddI.SpBctrum lso submitted a ion, nanad i n tho ring for the Cent te took us through rePort and othe DM f^ hlrfr l"^fh reE been done. (Phoolan !|at l.nrr ri' ed he enve foll r 2009 A I 2011 A r 2011 A ) qa ed env rf I Burea part lssues, Arora) fFr (hri ^€ the in K.K.Venugopal, learned senior Investiqaticrn alfd the Enforce Court has nce Corunr Di rect.o tion of 012 at. 2. o di rcel' needful
  17. 17. ; TTEM NO. "rp'r 344 SU II .l PREME I tI CIVIL AP CENTER FOR PIL & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORs, (l, appln(s) fon dinections a documents and intenvention and c |lITH C0NTEMPT PETTTTON (CrVrL) CoNTEMPT PETITIoN (CIVTL) pate:01/05/20L4 These on NO. N0, AppeaI for he /Dotifi ni no f'n CORAM ; Fon Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) HON'8LE MR. ]USTICE H. HON'BLE MR, ]USTICE K, '/ Mn. Pnas MF OF Mn. Vis Dn, Subr (Applic t In Per Mn. K. Mr. Go Mr, Ro Mr. Vi Ve udh Ta M<C Mn, Ha Mn. An Mn, P,lt, Ma1hotna, ASG Mn. Ra:iiv Nanda, Adv, Mn, B,fi, Pnasad, Adv, Mr. D,1,, Chidanandar Adv. Mr. Ritln Rai, Adv, Mn, Rlt;esh Kumar, Adv, Mn, D.Si, Mahna, Adv, ,lr "'l .: " .' Mn. Mukul, 6upta, ASG Mn, T.A, Khan, edv,l Mns, Anll. Katiyan, Adv' OF IN EDINGS oF zAtA pe nmls s a nific at on to file ad on and office of 29Ll n4 1A11 I , DATTU . RADHAK t Bhus Sachd -i ir qi s wene v, ISHNAN a, Adv, , , Adv, , ca I led ian S , Adv. I Sanka on) a1, 5r, Adv. ananayanan, Adv. AdV, , Adv, , Adv, kar, Adv, an, Adv, t Bhatt, amadity a Mathu h Pnabh
  18. 18. : Mn. Ariji't Pnasad, - Mn. Aseem Swanoop, l-tr, l'4n, E. c, Agnawala, Adv. Adv. Adv, M/s Suresh A Sht off & Co', Advs' Mn. 5,K. 'y'enma, Adv. Mr,AbhiJat P. Medh, Adv, 'Ms. Ninanana Singh, Adv. Mn. Satya mitna Garg, Adv. , l:'. ' Mn.''8,v. Ba!.r'am'oas;f aUv. Mr , Na'rin Chawla, Adv . Mn. Anupam Lal Das,Ad Mr. Vikas Singh, St . Adv' Mr, Dhanmendna Kumar Sinha, Adv. Dl, Rajeev Dhawan, Sn. Adv. Mn, 6aurav Kejniwal, Adv. Mr , Kesha'v Mohan,, Adv . Mr, Santosh Kumar TriPathi, Adv' lls, S. Ramamani, Adv, Mn. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Adv' Mn. Abhinav Mukenji, Adv. Kanan j awal.a Siddh;rth s UPON heaning counsel the Cou M/$ I | 'Mi"'. Mn' I Mr. Mr. Mn. Mn. Shri K. K. Devvrat, Kaus h ik Prashant Bh Manoj K Mi 14, K , 'Verma, Ashutosh Kr Anuvarat S Ravi P Meh Kaushal Ya ORDER VenugoPa s enlon I?
  19. 19. @'@""""anins on uerrarJ of the i ,^lS Y appeaning on behalft of the investigating officer for Centra] Buneau of Invpstigat M W"pp"""ing on behalJ of the lnvest{Satine a thqt Shni Vivek PniVadanfhi officer for Centra] Buneau of Invfstieatio RaJeshwan Slngh ls the lnvestisatflng offlc 'Enforc"ttent Dinectorate., who investigation of Aircel maxi-s cas!, : shni Vivek eniVadarfhi, officen of the Central Bureau 'pnesent along with Shni K'K' VenulCopal, Ie counse] 4 t., Dn. RaJeshwan Singh, Oenutf Dinector Dinectonate, who i; co{0uctine Aiicel Maxis case is dinlcted investigation along wllh Qfficens tlll the completion of Jhe tnial I snri K,K. Venugopal, 'leann{o ,tnio' fil.ed two sets each of sta' , ihe Status Repont on beh . Investigation and secondly., the 1lth, 12tl status neports on behalf of Enfofcement D ; sealed crcvens The same are taken on necofd ' The Status RgPort filed on behalf c I " " suheatr of 'Investigition is onenef'beforte' is againr kePt in sealed covens ' liJe dlrect the B^e-&+$IY to keeP t sealed covers and not to open tle same w: leave of the Count, t ency submits is the inv and Dr, fon the who of Investi rned senior :- Enfoncement fhp 1 +^ anh'' LV LVrl two othen counsel has u5 neports I If ,of and 13th rectonate trn the Centnal ese nePontF in thout the ane conductl tigati LOn lnve ue flnstly entnal 18 gatton of with the nvestigating Buneau of
  20. 20. ct&!a' -t w#1vbvLr,'.J ,-.. , tcartr ^ hln l) r}.l C,A, No, 1A550 o11 20tQ; t A. rlv Stat:us nepont on I . A ' No ' 72 be fj'Ied on on befone t2,,08.20t4. List the matten on 12.08':101"4' Contempt Petition No. 224 OF 2411 In Civil Appea] No' No, 10660 of 2010 List j.n the month of )ulY, 201'4, I Charanjeet Kaun ] Count Masten [t Vinod KuIvi ] Asstt, Regl.stran
  21. 21. "d rTEM NO,5gI HON.BLE HON'BLE For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) COURT NO.10 JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA JUSTIGE NAVIN SINHA Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AoR Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR , Mt. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, AIOR I Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Varnika Chawla, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Ms. Ridhilna Singh, Adv. In - person Ms. Pinky Anand, ASc. Mr. P.K. Mallick, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, AOR Mrs. AniI Katiyar, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Rajeev Nanda, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms, Swarupama Chaturvedj., Mr. curmept Singh Makker, Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Ms. Swati btrildiyal, Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. / EME RECORp MR, MR. Adv. Adv, AOR fl^^.r.rAr il, 7o OUT TODAY SECTION XIV SUPR COURT OF IIIDIA OF PROCEEDINGS Civil- Appe,al No(s).10660/2oLO CENTER FOR: PUBLIC INTEREST LTTIGATION & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS 8r ORS.Respondent(s) (rA N0 .L72786/2Ot7-DTRECTTON/MODIFTCATTON and rA No. 113252/2017 - CLARIFICATION,/DIRECTION ANd IA NO.t32429/2Ot7-APP'ROPRIATE ORDERS./DIRECTTONS and IA No .As66o/z0t9l Date : L2-03-2018 This matter was called on f,or hrearing today. CORAM :
  22. 22. '@ 2l Mrs. AniI Katiyar, AoR Mr, A. R4dhakri$hnan, AOR Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv. Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR Mr. Madhqmita Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Hitesh.Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. sandydMishra, Adv. Mr. S.K.l'lripathi, AOR Mrs. Nirflnjana $ingh, AOR Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, nrOR Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal, AOR Ms. S. Ramamanj., AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Siddharth Singla, AOR Mr. Devvrat, AOR Mr. Kaushik poddar, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Ms. Amita Singh KaIkaI, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke,AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER 'l'his is an important case pertaining to ZG $pectrum. The F,etition was filed in 2010. Various orders had been passed by this Court nunber of times. Thererafter, for the l-ast several years, we find that nothing substantial happened in the matter. tlltimately, this Court has passed an order on 4.1,.201.8 to investigate the case further and to submit the status; report and the case was ordered to be listed on 23.L.2:018. Thereafter, It is coming up today.
  23. 23. l l l l l l l I z'Ll l l l I l l l ce for the people of thisT' l 'acted the atfentioh of thisI i rg. It is r?h unfortunate I l an investigation in a1l 2c-l l : been complqted in aII the-l l rs direct aI! the toncernedI l Directorate I etc. in theI l rri K.K. Venufiopal, A.C. and r I 1at investigations shall be -t l l r all the cases and on a1lI l l rd no stone , shall be left I l L guilty shalf be bfoked but I 'iculties/ re$istanQe in theI l r K.K. Venugopal, Attorney'1. l r difficultie$ be placed on l the various ] cases be also l l I )ver, within a period of two.I ific att ceI o far has no by ia, ths rer, cial eof 20L4 and the arlie Speci udge 09.20 .I. a ore t earJ spe Judg ,.09 . B.I. fore r, as as 0 c tte t ed ,ed the l I ma I sJ or. tlt bFf dif Shr rt of Y of this ted hri U.U. been eleva e order r counsel for the procee S. l ate "--w I the aspects of the ma unturned in this regard This case has s country as the 2G scam Gourt and citizenry s state of affairs that and other allied cases issues and allied as agenc:ies, CBI, Enfor circumstances, as assur Attorney General for completed within six at the same time, cert proce,ss were pointed General for India. Le record and status re placed on record in a s weeks. Considering the this Court had appo Prosecutor. Since Shri this Gourt, this nominated Shri Anand Gr the Einforcement Directo "Tria1 Court".
  24. 24. -"ry 4 t Thereafter, the Government of IndJLa had issued notification on 26.aL.zot4 and iappointing shri Anand Grover as special./pubric prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeals/f'evisions or other proceedings arising out of the cases related to ZG Spectrum investigated by the Dp1hi SpeciaJ. police, Establishment (CBI) in the Court of Special Judge (2G Spectrum cases), Central Bureau of fnvestigation, Neh, Delhi and appellate/revisional cqurts and vide noti.fication dated 27.tI.2914 Shri Anand Grover was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution, appeals/revisions or other proceedings out of the cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2OO2 etc. arising out of 2G Spectrum 23 cases on lbehalf of the Directorate of Enforcerlnent bef ore the Special Court of PMLA and appellate,/fevisional and higher Courts. Thereafter, Shri Anand Grover had conducterd the matters. However, it is stated bV Shri Grover that lthe cases which were pending before the trial court at th€ time when he was appointed are over. Now, the Govern$ent has issued fl notification appointing Shri Tushar Mehta, Sr.Adv, in exercise of the power conferred by subl-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of L97tl). The Central Government has appointe$ him As per modifired notification for the purpose of "Apppa1s./revisions or other proceedings
  25. 25. a=g arising out of the inves'tigated by the (CBI) is the Court of Central Bureau of I revis:lonal Gourts", ar Spectrum investigated Estab.lishment (CBI) in spectrum casts, Centr DeIhi". Contempt applicat petitJloner CPIL i. e. i 2gL8 questioning appoi application No.28660 of Grover to discharge him After hearing the are orf the opinion t Special Prosecutor by services rendered by appointment was conf had i-ssued a notifica revisional proceedings to iss;ue fresh notificat application filed by S from the case. rhi stiga Iea this to ion cases ing ou by the Bu has Gont tment 2gt8 h rom t f Shr tc. it rela counsel Grover urt. We the same t trial court other was open to in the fact Grover for ?- the parties, appofnted as prec{ate the , sfi.nce his and Gtvernment rts, appeals, the Gdvernment , w€ {Ilow the his {ischarge Jud )ns, of e tio Tu: rir led :itj TI fi
  26. 26. -Y 2,8 l.n the af oresai.d circumstances, we f ind that no contempt is made out since the cases are o/er before the trial court for which purpose, this court had appointed shri Aifldhd Qrover as special Pubric Prosecutror. rt cannot be said to be a case of contempt comnnitted by the Government while appointing Shri Tushar Mehta a$ pubtic Prosecutor vide aforesaid modified notificat;ions. No case is madle out to proceed with the contempt perLition and the same is hereby dismissed. T'he application filed by Shri Anand Grover is allowed. He j-s discharged from the cases. Vlre request Mr. K.K. Venugopal, l-earned senior counsel to continue as Amicus curiae and in official capacity. Since Shri Anand Grover has been discharged, it would be open to the Government to appoint a Prosecultor for trial court purposes. In case, Additional Investigating Officers are required, it is open to the Government tro appoint them under information to thjrs Court. All pending applications to be listed on the next date. Let the case be listed on 3.4.201..8. ( B. PARV'ATHr ) COURT MIASTER (suMAN JArN) BRANC}I OFFICER