Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)


Writ Petition (Civil) No. .................... Of 2015
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IN THE MATTER OF:
1) PRASHANT BHUSHAN
S/O SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN
R/O B-16, SECTOR-14
NOIDA- 201301
PRASHANTBHUSH@GMAIL.COM

PHONE: 9811164068, 23070301

THE PETITIONER

VERSUS
1)

UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110001

2)

RESPONDENT NO. 1

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION


THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003

3)

RESPONDENT NO. 2

CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION


THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
GPO COMPLEX, INA
NEW DELHI-110023

4)

RESPONDENT NO. 3

JUSTICE C K PRASAD (RETD.)


CHAIRPERSON
PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA
SOOCHNA BHAVAN, 8, CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003

RESPONDENT NO. 4

To,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
JUDGES OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Humble Petition of the
Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1)

That the petitioner is filing the instant writ petition in public

interest under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of


Rights under Article 14 and 21 of the citizens. This is being filed
against the non-registration of FIR or Regular Case by the CBI
despite serious facts coming to light which show abuse of office and
criminal misconduct committed by Justice C K Prasad (Respondent
No. 4) as a Judge of this Honble Court. The petitioner herein had
made detailed complaints to the CBI and the CVC regarding the
abuse of office and misconduct by Respondent No. 4 but these
authorities have not taken any action in violation of the Constitution
Bench judgment of this Honble Court which state that registration of
FIR/RC is mandatory once information regarding commission of
cognizable offence is received by the law enforcement agency (Lalita
Kumari case (2014) 2 SCC 1). The petitioner is also seeking the
removal of Respondent No. 4 as the Chairperson of Press Council of
India.

The Petitioner herein is Mr. Prashant Bhushan. He is an advocateon-record of this Honble Court and is practicing since 1983. He is
also the convenor for Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reform
(CJAR) and a member of Committee on Judicial Accountability

(CoJA). He is also a member of the governing body of Centre for


Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Common Cause. He is a
founding member of India Against Corruption (IAC). He holds an MA
in Philosophy from Princeton University and is an author of two
books.

The petitioner has made detailed representation to the Respondent


authorities (Union of India, CBI and CVC) vide letters dated
27.11.2014, 01.12.2014 and 08.01.2015. The details of the same are
mentioned in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the instant petition. He has not
received any response to the same and it is learnt that no FIR has
been filed in the matter.

THE CASE IN BRIEF


2)

Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, titled Mistry Construction

P. Ltd. v. Makhija Developers P. Ltd. & Ors., were shown at Sl. No.
79 before Court No. 4, presided by the Justice B.S. Chauhan along
with Justice J. Chelameshwar and Justice M.Y. Eqbal in the Weekly
List No. 7 of 2014 from 18 th February to 20th February, 2014. This
was an appeal filed by Mistry Constructions against the judgment of
the Honble Bombay High Court which had made severe findings
against Mistry Constructions and directed a re-tender. The High
Court held that CIDCO acted in a mala fide manner in dA copy of the
relevant pages of the said judgment dated 20.01.2010 passed by the
Honble Bombay High Court is annexed as Annexure P1 (Pg
___________).

3)

A 3-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India of the

Supreme Court on 02.05.2013 rejected the request for a settlement


of the matter in view of the findings of the High Court. A copy of order
dated 02.05.2013 passed by this Honble Court is annexed as
Annexure P2 (Pg ___________).

4)

Justice Prasads former juniors in-laws are the main owners of

Mistry Constructions. The lawyer appearing for Mistry Constructions


Mr. A K Srivastava (senior advocate) shares his chamber (90,
Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court) with Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar
Prasad, the son of Justice Prasad. Thus Justice Prasad was aware
of this case and had an interest in the matter.

5)

Another petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

7232/2013, titled Neera Saggi and Anr. v. Avinash Parshuram Naik


and Anr. was before the Bench presided by Justice Prasad who had
issued notice on 05.09.2013. When the aforesaid matter came up for
further hearing on 20.01.2014 the Court passed following order: list
the following matter along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-3455 of 2013
on 29.01.2014. A copy of the order dated 20.01.2014 is annexed as
Annexure P3 (Pg ___________).

6)

Senior Advocate Shri Dushyant Dave was informed by the

counsels for the parties Mr. Pratap Venugopal and Mr. Anirudh P.
Mayee that none of the parties/counsels had mentioned about the
Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, much less as having a bearing
on the SLP (Crl). 7232/2013. They informed Shri Dave that, Justice
Prasad on his own stated that according to him there was a similar
matter pending and accordingly the aforesaid order was made.

7)

Clearly the order had recorded incorrect Appeal Numbers, and

therefore when the matter came up on 29.01.2014, the SLP (Crl.)


7232/2013 was not taken up for hearing and was adjourned. It
appears that on 20.02.2014 the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 was taken up
by Justice Prasad on his own though it was not listed, and the Court
passed the following order: By order dated 20.01.2014, this Petition
was directed to be listed on 29.01.2014 along with Civil Appeal No.
9454-9455/2013. Due to inadvertent mistake, the year of the Civil
Appeal No. 9454-9455 was shown as 2013 instead of 2010.
Resulting thereof, these Civil Appeals could not be listed along with
this Petition on 29.01.2014. List this Petition along with Civil Appeal
No. 9454-9455 of 2010 on 25.02.2014 at the top of the Board
subject to overnight part-heard. A copy of the order dated
20.02.2014 is annexed as Annexure P4 (Pg ___________).

8)

The matters were listed on 25.02.2014, and the Bench

presided by the Honble Justice Prasad, (Court No. 9 Item No. 2).

Justice Prasad, at the outset, accepted the submission of Shri C.U.


Singh, Senior Advocate, that the Civil Appeal No, 9454-9455 of 2010
was not connected with the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 and passed an
independent order in the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013. However despite
there being no connection, the Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 of 2010
was taken up, and in the absence of any effective representation
from CIDCO, a statutory body, the Civil Appeal disposed of by an
order dictated in open Court, in presence of many lawyers sitting in
the Court. Justice Prasad allowed the Writ Petitioner before the High
Court to withdraw the Writ Petition apparently in view of the
settlement between Mistry Constructions P. Ltd. and Makhija
Developers. P. Ltd. A copy of order dated 25.02.2014 passed by
Justice Prasad is annexed as Annexure P5 (Pg ___________).

9)

The above order was passed despite the fact that the same

settlement was earlier rejected by a 3-judge bench headed by the


Chief Justice of India of the Supreme Court on 02.05.2013.

10)

Shri C U Singh, senior advocate, informed Shri Dave about the

events. He stated: This is to confirm that when Item 2 in Court 9


was called out today, I pointed out to the court that the Civil Appeal
which was tagged with the Criminal Appeal in which I was appearing
had no connection at all with my matter. The Ld. Presiding Judge,
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, immediately said that they too had seen
it was unconnected and that the only thing common was that CIDCO

was a party. He asked me to proceed with my matter which I argued


and succeeded in. I assumed the matter stood de-tagged and left
the Court. Im not aware of what happened thereafter, but if the
hearing of the Civil Appeal proceeded, even though it was found to
be wrongly tagged, then its a matter of disquiet.

11)

As a result of this order, the judgment of the High Court along

with its severe findings has been set-aside without a debate, as well
as its directions for a re-tender. In effect, Mistry Constructions gets
the tender and 35 hectares of prime land at throwaway price. A copy
of letter dated 26.02.2014 sent by Shri Dushyant Dave, senior
advocate of this Honble Court, to the then Chief Justice of India
complaining about the conduct of Justice Prasad is annexed as
Annexure P6 (Pg ___________).

12)

The above facts show that Justice Prasad abused his position

as a Judge of Supreme Court in order to confer huge pecuniary


advantage on a private party (Mistry Constructions) and thus
committed criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.

13)

The petitioner as the convenor of Campaign for Judicial

Accountability & Reform (CJAR) had made a representation to the


Prime Minister to cancel the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as the

Chairperson of the Press Council. The needful was not done and the
petitioner also did not receive any response to the said letter. A copy
of the letter sent by the petitioner to the Prime Minister on
27.11.2014 is annexed as Annexure P7 (Pg ____________).

14)

The petitioner has made detailed complaint to the CBI and the

CVC vide letters dated 01.12.2014. The letter to CBI is annexed as


Annexure P8 (Pg _________) and the letter to CVC is annexed as
Annexure P9 (Pg __________). He is not received any response to
the same and it is learnt that no FIR has been filed in the matter.

15)

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint Mr. Anil Sinha was

appointed as the CBI Director. Later the petitioner learnt that Mr.
Sinha has a serious conflict of interest in the complaint filed by the
petitioner since his wife Mrs. Kirti Sinha is the former associate/
junior of Justice Prasad. Petitioner also learnt that the in-laws of Mr.
Sinhas either son or the daughter are the owners of Mistry
Constructions, i.e. the company that benefitted from Justice Prasads
orders. Moreover, his wife was the one of the lawyers for Mistry
Constructions in the same case which was disposed of in favour of
Mistry Constructions by Justice Prasad. Therefore, the petitioner
wrote a letter to the CBI Director on 08.01.2015 asking him to recuse
himself from the case. A copy of the said letter dated 08.01.2015 is
annexed as Annexure P10 (Pg ___________). The petitioner
therefore requests this Honble Court to direct an SIT investigation
into the matter, or at the very least, direct Mr. Sinha to recuse himself
from the CBI investigation.

16)

The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition or application

in any manner regarding the matter of dispute in this Honble Court


or any High Court or any other Court throughout the territory of India.
The petitioner has no other better remedy available.

GROUNDS
A. That the non-registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or
Regular Case (RC) by the CBI is in violation of the Constitution
Bench of this Honble Court in Lalita Kumari case (2014) 2
SCC 1 that states that registration of FIR/RC is mandatory
once a law enforcement agency receives information of the
commission of a cognizable offence.

B. That the inaction of the CVC in not investigating the complaint


made by the petitioner on 01.12.2014, or in not directing the
CBI to register a FIR/RC is in violation of the CVCs powers
under

the

CVC

Act

2003

including

its

power

of

superintendence over the CBI in corruption cases.

C. That the conduct of Respondent No. 4 amounted to criminal


misconduct and abuse of office in order to confer a pecuniary
advantage on a private party, which is a serious offence under
the

Prevention

investigation.

of

Corruption

Act

and

needs

through

D. That the conduct of Respondent No. 4 amounts to an abuse of


his high position as a Judge of the Supreme Court which is an
extremely serious matter and a thorough investigation by an
independent agency is required to maintain the confidence of
the public in the judiciary.
E. That the continuation of Respondent No. 4 in the high statutory
position of Chairperson of the Press Council of India goes
against the principles of rule of law, probity in public life and
institutional integrity, and therefore violates Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by this
Honble Court in the CVC appointment case (2011) 4 SCC 1.
F. That the prevailing corruption in the country in high places
seriously impairs the right of the people of this country to live in
a corruption free society governed by rule of law. This is a
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life
guaranteed to the people of this country also includes in its fold
the right to live in a society, which is free from crime and
corruption.

PRAYERS
In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Honble Court in public interest may be
pleased to: -

a.

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

directing the SIT/CBI to register a Regular Case or FIR against

Respondent No. 4 on the basis of the complaint made by the


petitioner dated 01.12.2014 and do a thorough investigation into the
matter.

b.

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

directing the Union of India to remove or initiate steps for the removal
of Respondent No. 4 as the Chairperson of the Press Council of
India.
c.

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

directing the CVC to conduct a thorough inquiry/investigation against


Respondent No. 4 on the basis of the complaint made by the
petitioner dated 01.12.2014.

d.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Honble

court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice.

Petitioner
Through

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal


Counsel for the Petitioner
Drawn by: Pranav Sachdeva
Drawn & Filed On:
New Delhi