CBI Investigation in Medical College Bribery Case: Supreme Court Rejects Plea for SIT Probe

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in the case of Kamini Jaiswal vs. Union of India & Another, which revolved around the integrity of the judiciary and the demand for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of bribery involving a retired High Court judge. The petitioner sought an investigation into a case related to corruption in medical college approvals, arguing that the case involved the judiciary and should be investigated by an independent body. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the constitutional role of the Chief Justice of India as the master of the roster and rejecting the plea for an SIT-led probe.

Background of the Case

The case arose from allegations that a retired High Court judge, in collusion with certain middlemen and private individuals, attempted to influence judicial proceedings related to Prasad Education Trust. This trust had been barred from admitting students for two academic years due to deficiencies in infrastructure and other regulatory violations.

The petitioner, advocate Kamini Jaiswal, alleged that a criminal conspiracy had been hatched to secure a favorable verdict in the Supreme Court through unlawful means. On September 19, 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under Section 8 and Section 120B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Indian Penal Code (IPC), naming a retired judge of the Odisha High Court along with other accused individuals.

In light of these developments, Jaiswal filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, seeking:

The constitution of an independent SIT led by a retired Chief Justice of India to investigate the case.
Directions for the CBI to submit all case materials and evidence before the Supreme Court.
Reassignment of the case to a Bench other than one presided over by the Chief Justice of India.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Kamini Jaiswal)

Jaiswal, represented by senior advocates, raised the following key points:

The allegations of judicial corruption involved senior judicial officers, making an independent investigation imperative.
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India should recuse from hearing or assigning the matter due to a potential conflict of interest.
The FIR contained disturbing allegations of bribery and undue influence in a case that had been heard by the Supreme Court.
The investigation should not be left to the CBI, which is under the administrative control of the government, to maintain judicial credibility.
The plea for an independent probe was aimed at protecting the integrity of the judiciary and not at making allegations against sitting judges.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)

The Government of India, represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, countered the arguments as follows:

The Chief Justice of India has exclusive authority to allocate cases and constitute benches, as reaffirmed in previous Supreme Court judgments.
The CBI’s FIR did not name any sitting Supreme Court judge, and the petitioner’s claims were based on speculation.
There was no material evidence indicating that any judge had been influenced in deciding the medical college case.
The petition was an attempt at forum shopping, as a similar petition had been filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) a day earlier.
Judicial independence required protection, but it did not mean bypassing established judicial procedures.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, issuing a strong rebuke against what it termed an attempt to undermine judicial integrity through speculative claims.

The Court made the following key observations:

“There is no direct evidence linking any sitting Supreme Court judge to the bribery allegations.”
“The Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster, and only he has the prerogative to constitute benches and assign cases.”
“The petition was misconceived and amounted to casting unfounded aspersions on the judiciary.”
“A parallel petition had already been filed, which suggests an attempt at forum shopping.”
“The judiciary must be protected from baseless allegations, and petitions aimed at scandalizing the court must be discouraged.”

The Court also cited the State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand (1998) decision, which held that the Chief Justice of a High Court has sole discretion over roster management, a principle that applies equally to the Supreme Court.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Chief Justice of India is the sole authority in case allocation and bench formation.
Allegations of judicial corruption require strong evidentiary backing and cannot be entertained based on speculation.
Attempts at forum shopping and seeking a specific bench for case hearings will not be tolerated.
The CBI’s investigation into the case was deemed sufficient, and an SIT was not required.
The judgment aimed to safeguard the judiciary’s independence from unwarranted and baseless accusations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamini Jaiswal vs. Union of India sets a significant precedent in cases concerning judicial independence and procedural propriety. By rejecting the plea for an independent SIT probe, the Court underscored the need for strict adherence to legal procedures while dealing with allegations involving the judiciary.

The decision sends a strong message that the judiciary must be protected from unfounded claims and that allegations of corruption must be backed by substantial evidence before being entertained. This judgment strengthens the authority of the Chief Justice of India in case management and reinforces the importance of institutional integrity in the judicial process.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kamini Jaiswal vs Union of India & Ano Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category