Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed public-interest petitions seeking investigation into Chhattisgarh’s helicopter purchase and alleged links to the Chief Minister’s son. After examining the procurement records, it found no substantiated extraneous consideration or prima facie material that the son benefited. The higher price was explained by early delivery through a distributor. Political motivation was not a jurisdictional bar, but an Article 32 petition by a political rival required a clear public-interest element.
Issues
- Whether the procurement record justified a court-directed investigation into alleged inflated pricing and kickbacks.
- How political rivalry affected the maintainability of the public-interest challenge.
Held
- Technical comparison supported the State’s choice of helicopter. Manufacturer correspondence explained that early delivery required purchasing a pre-sold machine through a distributor at a higher price. The invoice difference alone did not establish a commission for extraneous purposes; there was no evidence that the helicopter was then available at a lower price. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 14, 15)
- The CAG’s criticism of avoidable delay and extra expenditure did not attribute extraneous consideration. No prima facie material established the alleged benefit to the Chief Minister’s son, who was not personally a party. The Court therefore declined the investigation directions without examining mere procedural irregularities. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15, 16)
- The Court noted that the Panama Papers disclosures were separately under investigation by the governmental multi-agency mechanism. Dismissal of these petitions was not a finding terminating that separate inquiry. (¶ 13)
- Political motivation did not itself create a jurisdictional bar where genuine public interest warranted judicial scrutiny. But without a clear public-interest element, a political rival could not invoke Article 32 merely for alleged procedural irregularity capable of challenge by an aggrieved party in the appropriate forum. The petitions were considered and rejected on their merits. (¶¶ 6, 17)
Result
All three writ petitions dismissed without costs; no ground established for the investigation directions sought.