The Jharkhand High Court recently delivered a decisive judgment rejecting a public interest litigation that sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe allegations of disproportionate assets and benami properties attributed to a sitting Member of Parliament. The bench, comprising two judges, considered the matter at length and concluded that the petition was not maintainable. The petition had sought to initiate an investigation under judicial supervision involving multiple agencies—such as the Income Tax Department, Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, and state police—under a retired High Court judge heading the SIT, and wanted the High Court to monitor the process.
The Court’s analysis focussed first on the nature of the allegations and the procedural history. It recalled that earlier petitions with substantially similar accusations had been filed and dismissed by the same High Court. In those earlier proceedings, the Court had expressly held that the allegations did not constitute a public interest matter appropriate for PIL treatment. That earlier view, the bench noted, remained unchallenged in any higher forum, thereby attaining finality. As such, revisiting the same issue in a fresh petition would amount to impermissible re-litigation of settled observations. The High Court emphasised that its previous ruling had already addressed the maintainability of such public interest litigation alleging disproportionate wealth of the individual in question. Reinforcing that legal principle, it held that the current petition could not be admitted when the same grounds had already been considered and rejected.
The Court also examined the procedural deficiencies in the petition itself. One critical lapse was the absence of the individual against whom the relief was sought: the MP was not impleaded as a party in the petition. That omission, the Court held, undermines the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. In PIL jurisprudence, impleadment of the person against whom allegations are made is fundamental, especially in cases alleging corruption or asset accumulation. The failure to do so further compromised the petition’s maintainability.
Responding to arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, who had submitted that official departments had filed affidavits disclosing disproportionate assets, the Court acknowledged that investigations were ongoing. It noted that the Enforcement Directorate had registered cases under FIRs and the Income Tax Department had commenced reassessment proceedings. While the petitioner argued that progress in these investigations was slow and lacked judicial oversight, the bench found that existing mechanisms were already in place and sufficient, and judicial intervention via a writ petition was not warranted.
Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that the petition amounted to an attempt to bypass statutory investigative mechanisms even though those mechanisms were functional and actively engaged. By contrast, public interest litigation should generally be reserved for circumstances where no other remedy exists or where fundamental rights are at stake.
Rather than entertain the petition, the High Court urged the relevant investigating agencies to expedite their proceedings. The bench underscored the need for the ED and IT Department to conclude their inquiries without delay and to wrap up investigations in a logical and timely fashion. That expectation formed part of the Court’s broader instruction, although it stopped short of judicial supervision.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition in its entirety. Its reasoning rested on the twin bases of settled jurisprudence—namely that identical allegations had been held not to constitute maintainable public interest litigation—and procedural infirmities, including absence of impleadment. The bench affirmed that once an observation by a coordinate bench attains finality due to non-challenge in a higher court, it cannot be reopened in later proceedings.
The Court’s order reinforces an important principle in PIL practice: courts will not entertain repeat petitions raising identical allegations where prior decisions already addressed their maintainability. It also underscores procedural safeguards—like ensuring that parties against whom relief is sought are properly made parties to the proceedings. At the same time, the judgment preserves the autonomy of statutory bodies to pursue investigations under their respective mandates, while expecting timely resolution.
With the dismissal of the writ petition, the Court effectively declined to endorse the creation of a court-monitored SIT to investigate allegations of unexplained wealth involving the MP. Instead, it implicitly reaffirmed confidence in the independent investigative processes already underway. In urging the concerned authorities to expedite action, the Court signalled its concern that serious allegations should not linger unresolved, but it maintained appropriate restraint in not substituting itself for executive or statutory institutions.
In conclusion, the bench’s decision brings clarity to the legal contours of PIL maintainability. By refusing to entertain a petition that replicates previously rejected grounds, and by flagging procedural shortcomings in party impleadment, the High Court has upheld both legal consistency and institutional economy. Its insistence that existing agencies proceed with urgency underscores the importance of efficient investigation but also the constitutional boundary between judicial review and administrative processes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.