Inquiries against politicians: India

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry, deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries. Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings; and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch. See examples and a tutorial.

' SC will not order graft probes against politicians'

From the archives of The Times of India 2010

Now, SC won’t order graft probes against politicians

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: Making a strong departure from its proactive role in ordering registration of FIR against BSP supremo Mayawati in corruption cases, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that constitutional courts — the SC and HCs — must stay away from this course as it could prejudice the trial court against the accused.

“This court cannot sit in judgment whether investigations should be launched against politicians for alleged acts of corruption,” said a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal while rejecting a PIL seeking CBI probe into alleged disproportionate assets of Sikkim chief minister Pawan Chamling.

The SC and HCs were mandated to remove obstacles to a fair investigation to ensure its integrity, but “it is not viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an investigation”, it said. Ordering registration of FIR or initiation of investigation were functions that were clearly within the ambit of the executive and it was upto the probe agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them was sufficient to launch an investigation, said Justice Balakrishnan writing the judgment for the bench.

He said, “It must also be borne in mind that there are provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers the courts of first instance to exercise certain degree of control over the ongoing investigations. The scope for intervention by the trial court is hence controlled by statutory provisions and it is not advisable for writ courts to interfere with criminal investigations in the absence of specific standards for the same.” Accepting the logic supplied by Chamling’s counsel A Mariarputham, the CJI said, “If the SC gives direction for prosecution, it could cause serious prejudice to the accused, as the direction of this court may have far reaching persuasive effect on the court which may ultimately try the accused.”

At the same time, it did not shy away from its role to ensure fair probe. The SC said, “In some cases, judicial intervention by way of writ jurisdiction (available only with the HCs and SC) is warranted on account of obstructions to the investigation process such as material threat to witnesses, destruction of evidence or undue pressure from powerful interests.”