Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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