Can’t remain a mute spectator: Bombay HC on PILs against Anil Deshmukh

HC directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations raised against former home minister within 15 days

The Bombay high court (HC) directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct and conclude a preliminary inquiry into the allegations raised in the three public interest litigations (PILs) as well as a writ petition filed by former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh and others against former home minister Anil Deshmukh within 15 days. While directing the central agency for probe, HC admitted that the issues and allegations raised in the petitions were something that neither of the two judges had experienced.

HT Image

“The proceedings of which we are seized lays bare incidents, allegations and approaches of a kind which, at least, the two of us have not experienced before,” said the division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni at the start of its order.

The bench also observed in its 52-page judgment that Malabar Hill police had failed to take action on advocate Dr Jaishri Patil’s complaint, which had pointed to a cognisable offence being committed by Deshmukh.

HC noted that it could not remain a “mute spectator” to the complaints received against high-level officers and ruled, “It is, hence, certainly an issue of credibility of state machinery, which would stare at face when confronted with the expectations of law and when such complaints are received against high-ranking public officials. This court cannot be a mute spectator in these circumstances.”

It further observed that as the state police force was under Deshmukh [he resigned after HC’s directions for probe], it would serve the ends of justice if a preliminary probe was conducted by an independent agency such as CBI.

“Deshmukh is home minister. The police department is under his control and direction. There can be no fair, impartial, unbiased and untainted probe if the same were entrusted to the state police force. As of necessity, probe has to be entrusted to an independent agency like CBI,” noted the bench in its judgment.

“The allegations made by Shri Param Bir Singh are serious in nature and against the highest functionary of the government of Maharashtra, when it comes to the functioning of the police department. Prima facie, the issues are such that the very faith of citizens in the functioning of the police department is at stake. If there is any amount of truth in such allegations, certainly it has a direct effect on the citizens’ confidence in the police machinery in the state. Such allegations, therefore, cannot remain unattended and are required to be looked into in the manner known to law when prima facie they indicate commission of a cognisable offence. It is, hence, certainly an issue of credibility of the state machinery, which would stare at the face when confronted with the expectations of the law and when such complaints are received against high-ranking public officials,” the court observed.

Singh in his petition had alleged that the former home minister had bypassed him and directed police officers to “collect extortion/protection money” from restaurants and bars. He had further stated that even while the role of suspended assistant police inspector Sachin Vaze in the Antilia explosives threat case was being investigated, Singh was transferred to home guards by a home department order of March 17.

Singh’s petition had stated that he had apprised the chief minister and the deputy chief minister of these developments through a letter on March 20, but as no action was taken against Deshmukh, he had approached the Supreme Court. However, after the Apex court directed him to approach HC, he had filed a criminal public interest litigation (PIL) seeking probe to unearth the alleged malpractices by Deshmukh through an independent agency such as CBI or the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

HC said, “It is indeed unheard of and unprecedented that a minister could be so openly accused of wrongdoings and corrupt practices by none other than a senior police officer attracting wide attention from all and sundry.”

Patil’s PIL pointed out that the police had failed to initiate any action on Patil’s plaint, let alone file a first information report (FIR). In light of this, the high court observed, “Such allegations, therefore, can’t remain unattended and are required to be looked into in manner known to law when prima facie they indicate commission of cognisable offence.”

While citing an SC judgment of 1970 which dealt with allegations against a public servant accused of dishonesty, the bench said that as the Apex court had held that “there must be some suitable preliminary inquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer”, it was directing CBI to conduct a preliminary probe which is to be concluded in 15 days.

The court then left it to the discretion of the CBI director to decide on further course of action on the completion of the preliminary inquiry.

While restraining CBI from registering an FIR immediately on Patil’s complaint, HC held that as the concerns raised in all the petitions had been addressed, it was not keeping them pending and disposed of the three PILs, the writ petition and an intervention application.

‘Constitution envisages rule of law, not rule of goons’

The court in its judgment said, “The rule of law, in terms of the Constitution, pervades over the entire field of administration and every organ of the state is regulated by it. In fact, what the Constitution envisages is a rule of law and not rule of goons having political support. An ordered polity within India to promote the integrity of the country and to enliven liberty, equality and fraternity, which Dr BR Ambedkar was heard to say in the Constituent Assembly, are not to be treated as separate entities but as a trinity, are fundamental principles engrained in the Constitution. This trinity can be bypassed or overlooked only if the fabric of which the Constitution is woven be torn to pieces. Regrettably, for indolent state mechanisms and politicians, this can never happen, for the courts shall not countenance violation of Constitutional principles by anyone, howsoever high an office he occupies... courts would ensure that democratic values are respected.”