CBI Investigation Ordered in Tamil Nadu Gutkha Scam: Supreme Court Ruling

The case of E. Sivakumar vs. Union of India & Ors. involves a critical decision by the Supreme Court concerning a large-scale gutkha and pan masala scam in Tamil Nadu. The Court had to determine whether the ongoing investigation by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission should continue or if the case required a transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a more independent and thorough probe.

Background of the Case

The controversy began with the alleged illegal manufacture and sale of gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco and nicotine, substances banned in Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry. An investigation had been launched by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department of Tamil Nadu, but concerns arose about the fairness and reach of the probe, as the case involved high-ranking government and police officials.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Madras High Court, seeking the transfer of the case to the CBI. The High Court, in its judgment dated April 26, 2018, directed that the investigation be handed over to the CBI, citing the necessity for an independent and impartial probe. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by one of the accused, E. Sivakumar, who had served as a Food Safety Officer in Tamil Nadu.

Arguments by the Petitioner (E. Sivakumar)

The petitioner, E. Sivakumar, opposed the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, citing the following reasons:

• Previous Court Rulings Ignored: The Madras High Court had previously rejected similar requests for a CBI investigation in earlier petitions. The petitioner argued that the latest decision contradicted these rulings.
• No Opportunity for Defense: The petitioner was named in the FIR but was not given a chance to present his case in the PIL that led to the CBI transfer.
• No Special Circumstances for Transfer: The petitioner contended that the High Court did not provide specific reasons justifying why the CBI was needed for the investigation.
• Political Motivation: He claimed that the PIL was filed by a political figure and was motivated by personal or political interests rather than genuine public concern.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India & Others)

The respondents, led by the Union of India, defended the High Court’s decision, arguing that:

• Fair and Impartial Probe Required: The investigation involved high-ranking officials, requiring an independent probe beyond state control.
• Cross-State and National Involvement: The case extended beyond Tamil Nadu, necessitating an agency with national jurisdiction.
• High Public Interest: The illegal gutkha trade posed a significant health hazard, justifying a central investigation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld the High Court’s ruling and made the following key observations:

“The underground gutkha business is a crime against society that needs to be curbed. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the CBI to investigate all aspects of the illegal manufacture, import, supply, distribution, and sale of gutkha and other forms of chewable tobacco, which are banned in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.”

The Court addressed the petitioner’s objections as follows:

• The High Court had sufficiently distinguished its decision from earlier rulings and provided detailed reasons for ordering the CBI investigation.
• The petitioner’s claim that he was denied an opportunity to be heard was rejected, as accused individuals do not have an automatic right to be consulted when a criminal case’s investigation is being transferred.
• The necessity for a CBI probe was evident given the complexity, scale, and involvement of high-level officials in the illegal gutkha trade.
• The Court dismissed allegations of political motivation, stating that public officials, including legislators, have the right to raise concerns about corruption.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The investigation into the illegal gutkha trade should be transferred to the CBI.
• The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department of Tamil Nadu should cooperate with the CBI during the probe.
• All relevant documents and evidence gathered by state agencies should be handed over to the CBI.
• The decision of the Madras High Court was affirmed, and the special leave petition was dismissed.

The Court concluded:

“This order is not only imperative to stop the menace of the surreptitious sale of gutkha and chewable forms of tobacco, which pose a health hazard to people in general, but also to instill faith in the fairness and impartiality of the investigation.”

Petitioner Name: E. Sivakumar.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 18-05-2018.

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

Download Judgment: E. Sivakumar vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-05-2018.pdf