Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed Bimal Gurung’s petition seeking wholesale transfer of GJM-related investigations to an independent agency and associated protective relief. Constitutional courts can transfer investigations even after charge-sheet or commencement of trial, but the exceptional, case-specific grounds were not established here. General allegations of State bias and political persecution did not justify mass transfer. The Court distinguished protected peaceful protest from violence and expressly left the truth of the individual criminal allegations undecided.
Issues
- Whether allegations of political bias justified transfer of all existing and future GJM-related investigations.
- Whether the number of cases, the accused’s status or filing of charge-sheets categorically barred transfer.
- How peaceful-protest protection related to the relief sought.
Held
- Articles 32 and 226 permit transfer to an independent agency without State consent in exceptional circumstances requiring credible, fair investigation and justice. The power is exercised sparingly, and allegations against local police do not alone suffice. No special grounds were shown for transferring the identified cases here. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, 43, 46)
- Neither the number of cases, the applicant’s status as accused, nor commencement of trial is an absolute impediment. The refusal rested on the facts and lack of demonstrated exceptional grounds, rather than a categorical jurisdictional prohibition. A prayer to transfer cases en masse required substantiated grounds addressing the investigations concerned. (¶¶ 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- Peaceful expression and unarmed assembly are constitutionally protected. Violence, destruction and interference with others’ fundamental freedoms do not acquire protection merely through the description of political agitation. The material concerning loss of life and damage prevented acceptance of the assertion that all cases arose from an entirely peaceful movement. This did not determine the petitioner’s guilt in any case. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- General assertions of bias against the State and police, without specific substantiated pleading against individual functionaries, did not establish persecution warranting transfer. Police-origin FIRs could not be discarded merely because officers themselves reported cognizable offences. The Court expressly directed that its observations should not influence investigation or adjudication of the individual allegations. (¶¶ 35, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; no transfer or associated protective relief granted. Individual criminal allegations left for lawful investigation and adjudication uninfluenced by these observations.