Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors. - (29 Jan 2016)

Imperium of Constitutional Courts cannot be stifled

Criminal

Whereas the Supreme Court recently rejected a petition asking for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into an alleged iron ore mining scam, it was anything but reticent allowing it in the instant case. In preceding proceedings, the High Court, determining whether it could transfer investigation of a crime to the CBI, had relied on the principle of “stage”. Despite irregularities in conduct of the police, the court had accepted that since trial had commenced and several witnesses had been examined investigation could not be transferred to the CBI.

The Supreme Court, in light of investigative deficiencies and irregularities, ruled that “stage” of proceedings could not be allowed as stumbling blocks to reinvestigation. Reviling the loss of democracy “if a citizen feels, the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened to”, it placed courts’ duties of upholding the truth and law as uppermost. As such, Constitutional Courts could not be fettered into accepting trial based on an unfounded investigation. In the instant case, material witnesses to the crime had not been examined and irregularities in police departments had been found.

Relevant : State of West Bengal and Ors. v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. MANU/SC/0121/2010 Prof. K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Ors.MANU/SC/0842/2013

Tags : REINVESTIGATION   CBI   IRREGULARITY   SC/ST  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved