The Supreme Court has stayed the Jharkhand High Court’s directive for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in Legislative Assembly appointments. The Supreme Court found no criminal allegations present and emphasized that state mechanisms had already been activated. The case’s hearing will further explore the recruitment process and the appropriateness of central investigations in non-criminal matters.
New Delhi: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Nov 14th) stayed the Jharkhand High Court’s directive ordering a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities in appointments and promotions within the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan agreed to hear a plea challenging the High Court’s September 23, 2024, judgment, which sought an independent CBI investigation despite the absence of criminal allegations or a cognizable offence.
The petition, filed by the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha and others, represented by advocate Tulika Mukherjee, argues that “the high court erred in directing the CBI to investigate as the first investigating agency” without any compelling reason to bypass the state’s own investigative processes. The plea emphasized that the matter is purely civil, involving complex questions of law and service jurisprudence, and lacks any criminal undertone justifying the involvement of a central agency like the CBI.
“No Criminality Can Be Made Out”: Grounds for Appeal
According to the appeal,
“there is no proof of exchange of money, no fraud, and no criminality can be made out”
in the legislative appointments and promotions in question. The plea contends that neither an FIR has been lodged nor any allegations of cognisable offence have been substantiated, thereby nullifying any need for a criminal investigation by the CBI.
The Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Secretariat Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2003, which govern appointments, were established on March 10, 2003, to ensure transparency and efficiency in the hiring process for the Vidhan Sabha. Following standard procedures, public advertisements, examinations, and interviews were conducted, resulting in the recruitment of employees between 2003 and 2007.
Unverified Audio Recording Sparked Controversy
The controversy arose when certain individuals submitted an “unverified voice recording” allegedly highlighting irregularities in the recruitment process to the Speaker of the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha. This recording, which was converted into a compact disk, led to the formation of a five-member committee in October 2007 to examine the matter. However, the committee’s findings, presented in August 2008, were opposed by two of its own members, reflecting internal dissent on the validity of the allegations.
Further action was taken in July 2014 when the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department appointed a retired Jharkhand High Court judge to investigate the alleged irregularities. This commission’s report, submitted to the then-Governor on July 12, 2018, provided recommendations across 30 points of reference, though it remained uncommunicated to the state government, as stipulated under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.
High Court’s Ruling and Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Jharkhand High Court’s verdict stemmed from a petition citing irregularities in public employment within the Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha. However, the Supreme Court, in response to the plea, noted that the High Court may have overlooked key aspects, such as the administrative actions already undertaken in response to the commission’s recommendations and the absence of a criminal foundation.
In 2018, the Governor had advised the Speaker to implement certain recommendations of the commission report. Subsequently, two officers were given compulsory retirement as part of the recommended administrative actions. Additionally, in August 2022, the state requested the appointment of another commission to address “complicated questions of law and facts” arising from the initial recommendations.
Implementation of Report and Action Taken Report (ATR)
The plea also emphasized that the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, with government approval, had already prepared and submitted an Action Taken Report (ATR) based on the commission’s recommendations, which was then tabled in the House.
Read Also: “Avoid Adding Fuel to Fire”: Madras High Court on Matrimonial Disputes
“The high court failed to appreciate that the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat on the basis of the report and ATR was acting upon the same for its implementation,”
the petition stated.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Next Steps
By staying the High Court’s directive, the Supreme Court has halted the immediate involvement of the CBI, emphasizing that such intervention should be reserved for cases with clear criminal elements or significant evidence of misconduct, especially when state mechanisms have already been activated.
The Court’s decision to stay the CBI probe underscores a balanced approach to judicial intervention in state governance issues, particularly in cases rooted in administrative rather than criminal concerns. The Supreme Court’s approach reflects a focus on procedural integrity, respecting the boundaries between civil administrative reviews and criminal investigations.
The matter is now set for further hearing, during which the Court will delve deeper into the nuances of the Vidhan Sabha’s recruitment procedures, the High Court’s rationale, and the broader implications of ordering central investigations in non-criminal cases. This case could serve as a benchmark for evaluating the thresholds necessary to engage investigative agencies like the CBI, especially in scenarios devoid of any criminal findings or prima facie evidence.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
