Extra-judicial Executions: Mandamus – Role of Constitutional Court in monitoring investigations in continuing mandamus – The instant writ petitions were filed by some police personnel of Manipur Police aggrieved by certain observations made in EEVFAM case and seeking mandamus for quashing the observations – The prayer of the applicants/petitioners was that in view of the observations made in EEVFAM case on 30th July, 2018, the investigations be monitored by another set of judges of the Supreme Court – Recusal of the bench was, therefore, sought on the ground that as a result of the observations said to have been made, the applicants had a real apprehension that either the investigations or the trial would be tainted to their prejudice – Held: The apprehension of the applicants/petitioners that justice will not be done to them is misplaced – The purpose of a continuing mandamus is only to ensure that there is no interference during the course of investigations from anybody, whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any other pressure that could compromise the investigations – Yet another purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure that the Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team does not deviate from the natural course of investigations for whatever reason, either due to pressure or due to a misdirection or some other extraneous reason – This is the limited role of a Constitutional Court in monitoring investigations in a continuing mandamus – Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said to have been made on 30th July, 2018 would influence the SIT is erroneous – Observations made by any court cannot impact on the investigations as long as they are conducted by professionals – The SIT consist of professionals who will not be swayed by any observations made by any court during the continuing mandamus process – Mandamus.
Dismissing the applications, the Court
HELD: 1. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertains to allegations of serious violations of the human rights of persons described as insurgents. A large number of such persons were killed in operations carried out by the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police. Whether the death/killing of such persons was justified or not is a matter of investigation by the SIT. It was nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT was not conducting fair investigations into the allegations. During the hearing of EEVFAM and even after the decision was rendered on substantive legal and factual issues, no allegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will not be done or that anybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is only at the continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and that too on the basis of certain observations said to have been made by this Court. [Paras 20-21][312-C-F]
2. Once the judicial process has begun with the filing of the final report or charge sheet as the case may be, the concerned court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings. No one can interfere in the course of judicial proceedings otherwise it would amount to interference in the due course of justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason that when investigations are complete and a final report or charge sheet is filed, the Constitutional Court keeps its hands off any further progress in the matter. As far as the EEVFAM case was concerned, there was no allegation of any kind that any Trial Judge dealing with the case has shown a lack of independence. Interference in the due course of justice or the administration of justice would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the applicants/petitioners to harbour any apprehension that the Trial Judge(s) would be influenced by the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30th July, 2018. The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps unwittingly, questioning the fairness and independence of the judiciary. [Para 26][313-E-H]
3. There can be no interference in investigations and the courts cannot brook any interference in the judicial process. An exception may occur, when there is an unjustified deviation from the natural course of investigations or illegal interference in the judicial process. There is no basis for apprehension that the observations said to have been made by this Court can impact on the decisions to be taken by the SIT. The SIT is independent and so far, no allegation of unfairness has been made against the functioning of the SIT. Observations made by this Court or any court for that matter cannot impact on the investigations as long as they are conducted by professionals. The SIT consist of professionals who will not be swayed by any observations made by this Court during the continuing mandamus process. [Paras 27, 29][314-A-C; D-E]
4. The Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police are made of sterner stuff and are disciplined forces strong enough to take everything in their stride. There is no material to support the theory of the Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police being demoralised. It is only a submission made for some unfathomable reason. The continuing mandamus must go on and the independence and integrity of the SIT and the judges dealing with the final reports/charge-sheets must be maintained. Therefore, even though there is no reason for the applicants/petitioners to entertain any doubt that the SIT or the judiciary would be influenced by the observations said to have been made by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, any observations made or said to have been made on 30th July, 2018 during the implementation of the orders of this Court through a continuing mandamus are not intended to and should not in any manner be construed as compromising the independence, integrity and fairness of the SIT and the concerned judges. Institutional integrity of the CBI and the judiciary is positively required to be maintained. [Paras 30, 31, 32][314-G-H; 315-B-D]
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 : [2014] 9 SCR 965 ; Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat (2016) 3 SCC 370 : [2016] 1 SCR
56 ; Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal (2009) 6 SCC 260 : [2009] 9 SCR 194 ; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter) (2016) 5 SCC 808 ; R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 : [2009]
11 SCR 1026 – distinguished
Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India (2016) 14 SCC 536; Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 109 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 469 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.