Summary
By majority, the Supreme Court declined an SIT, transfer or court-monitored investigation concerning the five activists arrested in the Bhima-Koregaon investigation. It found no sufficient basis for exceptional intervention on the record, while leaving evidentiary questions and ordinary criminal remedies open. Existing house-arrest protection continued for four weeks to enable applications before the appropriate courts. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented: concerns about police media disclosures, investigative fairness and arrest safeguards warranted an independent, court-monitored SIT. Neither opinion finally determined guilt.
Issues
- Whether the accused or their next friends established a case for transferring or judicially monitoring the investigation.
- Whether the Court should determine evidentiary authenticity, release or external forensic examination in this petition.
- What interim protection and ordinary remedies should remain available.
- Whether the circumstances required an independent SIT, as the dissent concluded.
Provisions considered
- Section 41B — considered in Chandrachud J.’s dissent, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The dissent treated the use of travelling municipal-employee panch witnesses as relevant to its concerns about fairness, citing the arrest-memorandum safeguard requiring attestation by a family member or respectable member of the locality. This was not a majority finding invalidating the arrests. (¶¶ Chandrachud J., 27, Chandrachud J., 28, Chandrachud J., 29)
Held
- Majority: accused persons had no entitlement to select the investigating agency or dictate investigation. Constitutional power to order an independent investigation remained exceptional and required cautious exercise; allegations against local police alone did not suffice. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 21, Khanwilkar J., 22, Khanwilkar J., 23, Khanwilkar J., 24, Khanwilkar J., 25, Khanwilkar J., 30)
- Majority: the petition lacked specific material particulars establishing mala fide exercise of investigative power. Having inspected the material, the majority regarded the investigation as concerning alleged links with a banned organisation rather than mere political dissent; it expressly declined to evaluate sufficiency, genuineness or fabrication at that stage. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 26, Khanwilkar J., 31, Khanwilkar J., 34, Khanwilkar J., 35)
- Majority: four accused were permitted to adopt and pursue the petition. Next friends could not thereby secure relief unavailable to the accused themselves, and their independent role did not continue once capable accused pursued their own remedies. Relief concerning the separate FIR could not be advanced by these petitioners in these proceedings. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 27, Khanwilkar J., 28, Khanwilkar J., 29)
- Majority: requests for forensic examination outside Maharashtra and release from custody were left for the jurisdictional courts, without opinion on their merits or the maintainability of other proceedings. The accused retained the remedies available at the relevant stages under ordinary law. (¶¶ Khanwilkar J., 26, Khanwilkar J., 32, Khanwilkar J., 33)
- Majority disposition: the petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies. The 29 August 2018 interim house-arrest arrangement continued for four weeks, and subsequent courts were to decide independently of these observations. The investigating officer remained free to proceed according to law. (¶ Khanwilkar J., 37)
- Chandrachud J., dissenting: the fair-investigation grievance invoked constitutional protection of liberty, dignity and equality, rather than merely substituting a preferred investigator. Participation by the arrested persons removed the locus objection; the amended SIT prayer reflected the original fair-investigation case. (¶¶ Chandrachud J., 5, Chandrachud J., 14, Chandrachud J., 15, Chandrachud J., 16, Chandrachud J., 17, Chandrachud J., 18, Chandrachud J., 19, Chandrachud J., 20, Chandrachud J., 21)
- Chandrachud J., dissenting: selective police disclosure of purported investigative material to the media, the concerns about linking general allegations to named individuals and the arrest-witness circumstances cast doubt on impartiality. Those concerns called for safeguards and independent investigation, without deciding the ultimate truth of the accusations. (¶¶ Chandrachud J., 22, Chandrachud J., 23, Chandrachud J., 24, Chandrachud J., 25, Chandrachud J., 26, Chandrachud J., 27, Chandrachud J., 28, Chandrachud J., 29)
- Chandrachud J., dissenting disposition: an SIT monitored by the Supreme Court should have been constituted with initially monthly reports; house arrest should have continued for three weeks to permit bail applications. That proposed relief did not constitute the operative majority order. (¶¶ Chandrachud J., 30, Chandrachud J., 31, Chandrachud J., 32, Chandrachud J., 33, Chandrachud J., 34, Chandrachud J., 35, Chandrachud J., 36, Chandrachud J., 39, Chandrachud J., 40, Chandrachud J., 41)
Result
Petition disposed of by majority without transfer, SIT or court monitoring; ordinary remedies preserved and existing house arrest continued for four weeks. Chandrachud J. dissented in favour of a monitored SIT and proposed three weeks’ interim protection.