Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003

20 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusDR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

2012 INSC 5931 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed a representation with the Prime Minister seeking sanction to prosecute the then Minister of Communications, A. Raja, for alleged corruption in the 2G spectrum allocation. After repeated reminders and a CBI FIR was registered 16 months later, the Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition,

M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 91327 November 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a Public Interest Litigation concerning the Taj Heritage Corridor project, which alleged irregularities and unauthorized release of Rs. 17 crore. The Court had earlier ordered a CBI inquiry and later directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate senior officials. The Director of CBI sub

COMMON CAUSE : A REGISTERED SOCIETYversusUNION OF INDIA

2017 INSC 40827 April 2017Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed by Common Cause and other NGOs seeking a declaration that Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(4)(i) of the Search Committee Rules, 2014 were ultra vires the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and that the appointment process for the Lokpal should be stayed until the pending Amendment Bil

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.versusS.S. SHEOKAND & ANR.

2014 INSC 14126 February 2014Case Partly allowed

The respondent, a senior manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, was charged with purchasing third‑party cheques and drafts beyond his lending authority and with procedural lapses in a loan scheme. An internal inquiry found the first charge partly proved and the second unproved, after which the bank sought advice from th

UNION OF INDIA AND ANRversusC. DINAKAR, L.P.S. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 29020 April 2004Disposed off

The Union of India appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s affirmation of a Central Administrative Tribunal order that quashed the appointment of R.K. Raghavan as Director of the CBI and directed a fresh selection process. The first respondent, C. Dinakar, a senior IPS officer who had retired, claimed that the appo

A.M. KULSHRESTHAversusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

2025 INSC 74419 May 2025

The appellant, a senior officer of Union Bank of India, was suspended in August 2018 and later served a charge‑sheet in June 2019 for alleged laxity in sanctioning credit proposals. The bank claimed the delay in issuing the charge‑sheet was due to seeking the first‑stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

VIVEK BATRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 97118 October 2016Dismissed

Vivek Batra, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was investigated by the CBI for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. After a six‑year investigation, the Finance Ministry sought and eventually received a sanction for his prosecution on 9 October 2012, following advice from the Central Vigilance Commis

MANOHAR LAL SHARMAversusTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

2013 INSC 83917 December 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which requires prior Central Government approval for CBI investigations into senior officials, applies when the investigation is being monitored by the Court itself. The Court noted that the CBI had initiated investigatio

STATE OF PUNJABversusSAUL SABHLOK AND ORS.

2013 INSC 10615 February 2013Disposed off

The State of Punjab appointed Harish Dhanda as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission, prompting a public‑interest writ petition under Article 226 alleging lack of integrity, political affiliation and absence of requisite administrative experience. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench referred speci

CBIversusR.R. KISHORE

2023 INSC 81711 September 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The CBI registered a case against Dr. R.R. Kishore for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but conducted the investigation without the prior approval of the Central Government required by Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Delhi High Court allowed the trial

DR. JAYA THAKURversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2023 INSC 61611 July 2023Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021, the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 on the ground that they allowed arbitrary extensions of the tenure of the Director of Enforcement and the Director of CBI, thereby e

THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 50210 July 2024Directions issued

The State of West Bengal filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Union of India’s registration of cases by the CBI after the State withdrew its consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is unconstitutional, and asked for an injunctio

RAJESHWAR SINGHversusSUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8129 December 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a contempt petition filed by Rajeshwar Singh, an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate, who alleged that respondents including Subrata Roy Sahara were intimidating him and attempting to derail the court‑monitored investigation into the 2G Spectrum scam. The petitioner invoked Arti

ALOK KUMAR VERMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 368 January 2019Disposed off

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India issued orders on 23 October 2018 divesting Director Alok Kumar Verma of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of his powers, functions and supervisory role. The Director challenged the legality of these orders, arguing that under Section 4B(2) of th

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusDIRECTOR, CENTERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2014 INSC 3586 May 2014Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 6‑A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (inserted by Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003), which required prior approval of the Central Government before the CBI could inquire into or investigate alleged offences u

M. MANOHAR REDDY & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 734 February 2013Dismissed

The petitioners, two advocates, sought a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him and that the consultative process had failed to consider this. The Court examined the distinction between eligibility (objective)

SHAHID BALWAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 5863 September 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether its own orders dated 11 April 2011 and 9 November 2012, issued under Articles 136 and 142 while monitoring the 2G spectrum scam investigation, could be recalled. The petitioners argued that the orders infringed their right to approach the High Courts under Articles 226, 227 and Sectio

CENTRE FOR PIL & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2011 INSC 1753 March 2011Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the legality of Shri P.J. Thomas's appointment as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, which was based on a recommendation by the High Powered Committee (HPC). The Court found that the HPC failed to consider material indicating pendi

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 5682 July 2018Disposed off

The petitioners, including Common Cause, challenged the appointments of K.V. Chowdary as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner (VC) on the ground that the selections violated the constitutional principles of impeccable and institutional integrity. They alleged that Chowdary had

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search