Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms = lost it's accountability and filed this frivolous petition- independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of the CBI or that of the police is a red herring. There cannot be any FIR even against the Civil Judge/Munsif without permission of the Chief Justice of the concerned court; and rightly, FIR has not been registered against any sitting Judge. Otherwise, on unfounded allegations, any honest Judge to the core, can be defamed, and reputation can be jeopardized. No Judge can be held responsible for what may, or has happened in the corridors, or for ‘who purports to sell whom’. The alleged actions of a retired Judge of a High Court, allegedly assuring and promising, a ‘favourable’ decision in the aforesaid circumstances of the case which was then pending before this Court, in the aforesaid circumstances and has assured favourable orders, begs the question, and we wonder, as to what favourable orders have been passed. As is apparent from the aforesaid narration of facts, there was no favourable order granted by this Court in favour of the medical college for the current academic session 2017-18, rather its inspection for considering confirmation of letter of permission for the next year 2018-19 had been ordered. The decision will be in the hands of the MCI. After decision has been rendered on 18.9.2017 by this Court, an FIR has been lodged and it appears that money was yet to be exchanged. The FIR dated 19.9.2017 reflects that Mr. B.P. Yadav, Justice Quddusi, Ms. Bhawana Pandey, and Mr. Sudhir Giri were likely to meet Mr. Biswanath Agarwala for getting favourable order at Delhi shortly; whereas this Court has already decided the mater on 18.9.2017. Thus it is a far fetched and too tenuous to even assume or allege that the matter was pending in this Court for which any bribe was to be delivered to anyone.- There is an averment made in the writ petition that it is against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been recorded. We do not find reflection of any name of the Judge of this Court in the FIR….” The petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability. What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than subserving it. - the present petition is gross abuse of the process of court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25 (twenty five) lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court within six weeks whereafter the said amount shall be transferred to Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 169 OF 2017
Campaign for Judicial
Accountability and Reforms .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and Others .... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1) By means of the present writ petition (public interest
litigation) (PIL), the petitioner, Campaign for Judicial
Accountability and Reforms, through its Secretary, has
approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus or any
other writ or direction of similar nature to constitute a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Chief Justice of
India to investigate in the matter of alleged conspiracy and
payment of bribes for procuring favourable order in a matter
pending before this Court and take consequential actions
thereafter along with a direction to the Central Bureau of
2
Investigation (CBI) to hand over all the materials/evidence
collected so far in the FIR bearing No. RC10(A)/2017-AC.III,
New Delhi to the SIT to be constituted by this Court.
2) We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney
General appearing for the Union of India.
3) Shri Prashant Bhushan, referring to the FIR dated
19.09.2017 filed by the CBI, New Delhi submitted that in the
FIR names of various persons have been mentioned as
suspected accused along with other unknown public servants
and private persons. According to him, the aforesaid FIR has
been lodged regarding some criminal conspiracy for getting a
matter pending before this Court settled. He thus submitted
that one does not know how many public and private persons
are involved in it and the matter relates to huge gratification
for inducing public servants in a matter pending before this
Court. He, however, emphasized that the purpose of filing this
petition is not to name any Judge of this Court but to protect
the independence of the judiciary and in order to arrive at an
3
impartial investigation, this Court may appoint a SIT headed
by a retired Chief Justice of India.
4) Learned Attorney General for India, on the other hand,
submitted that the petitioner is abusing the process of court
and this very issue, in an identical writ petition, being No.
W.P. (Crl.) No. 176 of 2017 titled Kamini Jaiswal vs. Union
of India and Another has been considered and the writ
petition has been dismissed by this Court on 14.11.2017.
Therefore, the present writ petition is also liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.
5) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
various pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties and we
find that in Kamini Jaiswal (supra)¸ this Court had
considered the similar plea raised by Shri Prashant Bhushan
and had dealt in detail vide judgment and order dated
14.11.2017. For ready reference, the reliefs, the facts as also
the findings recorded by this Court in Kamini Jaiswal
(supra) in paragraph Nos. 4, 7, 8, 22 and 29 are reproduced
below:-
4
“4. In the writ petitions, a prayer has been made to
constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by
retired Chief Justice of India, to investigate the offences
arising out of FIR being RC.10(A)/2017-AC. III dated
19.9.2017 recorded at New Delhi by the CBI and those
connected therewith and take consequential action
thereafter in accordance with law. A prayer was also made to
direct the CBI, to produce before this Court for its perusal
and, preserve and protect, all evidences/materials collected
so far and hand over all the materials/evidences collected so
far in the FIR to the SIT to be constituted by this Court.
7. On 19.9.2017, an FIR was registered against the following
persons in connection with the case :
(i) Shri I.M. Quddusi, retired Judge of the High Court
of Odisha.
(ii) Smt. Bhawana Pandey r/o GK. New Delhi (private
person)
(iii) Shri B.P. Yadav (private person)
(iv) Shri Palash Yadav (private person)
(v) Shri Sudhir Giri (Private person)
(vi) Shri Biswanath Agrawala, r/o HIG – 136, Phase 1,
Kanan Vihar, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha (Private person)
(vii) Other unknown public servants and private
persons.
8. It was alleged in the FIR, that Mr. B.P. Yadav had
requested Justice I.M. Quddusi and Smt. Bhawana Pandey
to get the matter settled in the apex Court through their
contacts. They engaged Mr. Biswanath Agarwala, a private
person and a resident of Bhubaneswar, Orissa for getting the
matter settled in the apex Court. Mr. Biswanath Agrawala
claimed that he would get the matter favourably settled. He
demanded huge gratification for inducing the public servants
by corrupt and illegal means. Further, that Mr. B.P. Yadav,
Mr. Palash Yadav, Justice I.M. Quddusi, Mrs. Bhawana
Pandey and Mr. Sudhir Giri were all likely to meet Mr.
Biswanath Agrawala for delivering the agreed illegal
gratification at Delhi shortly. The FIR was recorded on
19.9.2017 whereas this Court had already disposed of the
matter on 18.9.2017. It is averred in the petition that the
case discloses commission of offence punishable under
section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
section 120B of the IPC against the named persons as well
5
as against the unknown public servants and private persons.
It is further averred in the petition that since the matter
involves persons placed at the highest echelons of power
including justice delivery system and in subsequent raids
made by the CBI it has recovered close to Rs.2 crores in
cash, the agency has seized Rs.1 crore which the Hawala
operator had handed over to an aide of the retired Judge I.M.
Quddusi.
22. The submissions so raised, and averments so made, in
this petition, and the entire scenario created by filing of two
successive petitions, are really disturbing a lot. The entire
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.
There is an averment made in the writ petition that it is
against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been
recorded. We do not find reflection of any name of the Judge
of this Court in the FIR. There is no question of registering
any FIR against any sitting Judge of the High Court or of this
Court as it is not permissible as per the law laid down by a
Constitution Bench of 5 Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the
case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655
wherein this Court observed that in order to ensure the
independence of the judiciary the apprehension that the
Executive being largest litigant, it is likely to misuse the
power to prosecute the Judges. Any complaint against a
Judge and investigation by the CBI if given publicity, will
have a far reaching effect on the Judge and the litigant
public. The need, therefore, is of judicious use of action
taken under the Act. There cannot be registration of any FIR
against a High Court Judge or Chief Justice of the High
Court or the Supreme Court Judge without the consultation
of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and, in case there is an
allegation against Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the decision
has to be taken by the Hon’ble President, in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in the said decision. Thus, the
instant petitions, as filed, are a misconceived venture
inasmuch, as the petition wrongly presupposes that
investigation involves higher judiciary, i.e. this Court’s
functionaries are under the scanner in the aforesaid case;
that independence of judiciary cannot be left at the mercy of
the CBI or that of the police is a red herring. There cannot be
any FIR even against the Civil Judge/Munsif without
6
permission of the Chief Justice of the concerned court; and
rightly, FIR has not been registered against any sitting
Judge. Otherwise, on unfounded allegations, any honest
Judge to the core, can be defamed, and reputation can be
jeopardized. No Judge can be held responsible for what may,
or has happened in the corridors, or for ‘who purports to sell
whom’. The alleged actions of a retired Judge of a High
Court, allegedly assuring and promising, a ‘favourable’
decision in the aforesaid circumstances of the case which
was then pending before this Court, in the aforesaid
circumstances and has assured favourable orders, begs the
question, and we wonder, as to what favourable orders have
been passed. As is apparent from the aforesaid narration of
facts, there was no favourable order granted by this Court in
favour of the medical college for the current academic
session 2017-18, rather its inspection for considering
confirmation of letter of permission for the next year 2018-19
had been ordered. The decision will be in the hands of the
MCI. After decision has been rendered on 18.9.2017 by this
Court, an FIR has been lodged and it appears that money
was yet to be exchanged. The FIR dated 19.9.2017 reflects
that Mr. B.P. Yadav, Justice Quddusi, Ms. Bhawana Pandey,
and Mr. Sudhir Giri were likely to meet Mr. Biswanath
Agarwala for getting favourable order at Delhi shortly;
whereas this Court has already decided the mater on
18.9.2017. Thus it is a far fetched and too tenuous to even
assume or allege that the matter was pending in this Court
for which any bribe was to be delivered to anyone.
29. ….. Ultimately after arguing at length, at the end, it was
submitted by the petitioner and her counsel that they were
not aiming at any individual. If that was not so, unfounded
allegations ought not to have been made against the system
and that too against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this
country. In case 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 laid
down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions of this Court in
Dr. D C Saxena (supra) and K. Veeraswami (supra).”
6) The FIR which came for consideration in the case of
Kamini Jaiswal (supra) and in this case, is the same.
7
Further, we find that in Kamini Jaiswal (supra), this Court
had noted the circumstances under which similar petition,
that is, W.P. (Crl.) No. 176 of 2017 was filed by Advocate
Kamini Jaiswal on 09.11.2017, i.e., immediately on the next
day of the mentioning of the present petition on 08.11.2017.
The facts, the relief, the submissions being same which was in
Kamini Jaiswal (supra), we do not find any good ground to
entertain this petition as the matter had already been decided
by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2017
relevant portions of which have already been reproduced
above.
7) It is also relevant to mention here that this Court in
paragraph 22 in Kamini Jaiswal (supra) has raised its
concern about filing of the successive writ petitions in the
following words:
“22. The submissions so raised, and averments so made, in
this petition, and the entire scenario created by filing of two
successive petitions, are really disturbing a lot. The entire
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.
There is an averment made in the writ petition that it is
against the highest judicial functionaries; that FIR has been
8
recorded. We do not find reflection of any name of the Judge
of this Court in the FIR….”
8) The petition is not only wholly frivolous, but
contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalizing the highest
judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis
and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of
persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability.
What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its
accountability and filing of such petition may entail in
ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called
public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury
to cause of public than subserving it.
9) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion and we are constrained to say that the
present petition, in particular, the manner in which it has
been pursued without any remorse by questioning the decision
rendered on the subject matter by this Court including the
plea taken in the earlier petition as noted in paragraph 29 of
the said decision, is gross abuse of the process of court.
9
Therefore, it has to be dismissed with exemplary costs in order
to ensure that such attempt is not repeated in future.
1
0
10) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.
25 (twenty five) lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner before
the Registry of this Court within six weeks whereafter the said
amount shall be transferred to Supreme Court Bar Association
Advocates’ Welfare Fund.
...…………………………………J.
(R.K. AGRAWAL)
…………….………………………J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
…………….………………………J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 1, 2017.