Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking SIT Probe in Alleged Bribery Case Involving Judiciary

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a controversial Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms in the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India & Ors.. The petition sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate allegations of bribery in matters pending before the Supreme Court. The Court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakh on the petitioner for attempting to scandalize the judiciary without any substantial basis.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a non-governmental organization advocating judicial transparency, approached the Supreme Court through a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petition sought the appointment of an SIT, headed by a retired Chief Justice of India, to investigate an alleged conspiracy and bribery attempt related to a medical college matter that was pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner further requested that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) hand over all material and evidence collected in FIR No. RC10(A)/2017-AC.III, registered in New Delhi, to the proposed SIT.

The case became particularly controversial because it implied that sitting judges of the Supreme Court could be under scrutiny in relation to the alleged bribery scandal.

Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

Whether the PIL was maintainable given that a similar petition had already been dismissed in Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India.
Whether there was any material evidence in the FIR to justify an SIT probe targeting judicial officers.
Whether the petition amounted to an attempt to scandalize and discredit the judiciary.

Arguments by the Petitioner

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, made the following arguments:

The CBI FIR dated September 19, 2017, mentioned a conspiracy involving bribes to procure a favorable Supreme Court order.
The matter needed an independent investigation through an SIT as it involved high-ranking public officials.
The integrity of the judiciary required urgent intervention to ensure that no undue influence was exercised in pending cases.
The purpose of the petition was not to malign any judge but to safeguard judicial independence.

Arguments by the Union of India

The Attorney General of India, K.K. Venugopal, representing the Union of India, strongly opposed the petition, stating that:

The same issue had already been raised and dismissed in Kamini Jaiswal v. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) No. 176 of 2017).
The petition was an attempt to undermine the credibility of the judiciary based on baseless allegations.
The FIR did not name any sitting judge, and no evidence suggested judicial misconduct.
The PIL was an abuse of the process of law, intended to create unwarranted suspicion against the judiciary.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the petition, making the following key observations:

The petition was wholly frivolous and contemptuous as it aimed to scandalize the judiciary.
There was no mention of any sitting Supreme Court judge in the FIR.
The matter had already been decided in the Kamini Jaiswal case, and the petitioner was attempting to re-litigate the same issue.
The petitioners themselves had forgotten their accountability in filing such a petition.

The Court observed:

“The judicial system has been unnecessarily brought into disrepute for no good cause whatsoever. It passes comprehension how it was, that the petitioner presumed that there is an FIR lodged against any public functionary.”

The Court further noted:

“If the majesty of our judicial system has to survive, such kind of petitions should not have been preferred, that too against the settled proposition of law.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition with severe criticism and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakh on the petitioner, payable to the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund within six weeks.

The Court directed:

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25 lakh.
The amount must be deposited with the Registry of the Supreme Court.
The funds should then be transferred to the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has several critical implications:

It reinforces the principle that the judiciary must not be subjected to baseless accusations under the guise of public interest litigation.
It sets a precedent discouraging frivolous PILs aimed at maligning the judicial system.
It clarifies that allegations against judicial officers require substantive evidence before an investigation can be initiated.
It upholds the independence of the judiciary and protects it from unwarranted external influences.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India serves as a strong deterrent against the misuse of PILs to cast aspersions on the judiciary. By imposing a heavy penalty, the Court has sent a clear message that judicial integrity cannot be compromised by frivolous and baseless allegations. The ruling upholds the sanctity of judicial independence while ensuring that due process is followed in investigating corruption allegations.

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

Download Judgment: Campaign for Judicia vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
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 December 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