DIGVIJAY SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment is rendered in all these matters, as similar points arise for consideration. Except the suo motu proceedings, Writ Petition No.6385/2014, all other petitions are filed by private persons as Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, praying for a direction to withdraw the investigation of the criminal cases commonly known as PMT VYAPAM Examination Scam cases from the Special Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the "STF") constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh; and instead entrust the same to an independent Investigating Agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI"). This very relief was considered by the Division Bench of this Court (one of us, namely, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice was member of that Bench), in Writ Petition 15186/2013 (Awashesh Prasad Shukla vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and other companion matters, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 16th April, 2014. In that judgment, the Division Bench rejected the prayer for transferring the investigation of subject cases to CBI, whereas it found that the investigation of those cases was entrusted by the State Government to STF keeping in mind the sensitivity and the gravity of the issues. Further, although STF was part of the Home Department of the State Government, yet the officials of the STF dealing with the investigation of those cases were not only experienced and well qualified persons, but, also having a track record of being independent officers. The Court further found that the investigation already done by the STF of those cases was proper and was proceeding in right direction. Nevertheless, the Court to re-assure itself, in larger public interest, deemed it proper to monitor the investigation. That judgment deals with every singular criticism made by the petitioners about the manner in which the cases were entrusted to STF and also the ability of the STF to handle investigation of such serious cases.

(2.) We have been informed across the Bar by the counsel appearing for the respective parties in these new set of petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation that the said decision has not been assailed by anyone before the Supreme Court. In that sense, it may not be possible for us to examine the same issues or factual aspects, which were subject matter of earlier proceedings; as the findings of this Court on those matters have attained finality. Rather, the findings recorded in the previous judgment will bind this Court and it may not be open for us to disregard the same in absence of any request for review of the said decision or for reconsideration of the legal principles stated therein merely because these fresh set of writ petitions have been filed. Thus understood, the scope for examining the self same relief for transfer of investigation to another independent Investigating Agency, namely, CBI, can be considered only if the petitioners are in a position to substantiate inertia or acts of commission and omission of the STF during the investigation of the stated cases subsequent to the earlier decision.

(3.) Realizing this position, counsel appearing for the petitioners, essentially, adverted to the matters, which unfolded after April 16, 2014, to impress upon us that now the time has come to transfer the investigation to independent Investigating Agency, namely, CBI.