Holding

The Court held that the petitioners' apprehension of bias is unfounded; the observations do not compromise the SIT's independence, and no ground exists for bench recusal.

Summary

Petitioners, police personnel of Manipur Police, filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking a mandamus to quash oral observations made by the Supreme Court on 30 July 2018 in the EEVFAM case and to obtain the bench's recusal, alleging that those observations would prejudice the investigations and trial. The Court examined whether the petitioners had a real apprehension of bias and the proper scope of a continuing mandamus in monitoring investigations by the CBI‑appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). It held that the observations made by the Court cannot influence the independent and professional SIT, and no allegation of bias or demoralisation of the armed forces was substantiated. The Court clarified that a continuing mandamus merely ensures that investigations are free from external pressure and that the judiciary must not interfere once a final report or charge‑sheet is filed. Consequently, the applications for recusal and quashing of observations were dismissed, and the writ petitions were ordered to proceed to a preliminary hearing.

Issues considered

The petitioners' alleged apprehension of bias arising from the Supreme Court's observations on 30 July 2018.
Whether such apprehension justifies the recusal of the bench hearing the case.
The proper role and limits of a continuing mandamus in monitoring investigations.
Whether the observations could demoralise the armed forces or affect the SIT's independence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2)
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

continuing mandamusrecusaljudicial biasspecial investigation teamCBIhuman rightsextra-judicial executionsArticle 32Manipur Policearmed forces

Judgment

[2018] 14 S.C.R. 299 299

LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
(CRL.M.P. No. 125554 of 2018)
in
B
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 205 OF 2018
NOVEMBER 12, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Extra-judicial Executions: Mandamus – Role of Constitutional Court
in monitoring investigations in continuing mandamus – The instant C
writ petitions were filed by some police personnel of Manipur Police
aggrieved by certain observations made in EEVFAM case and
seeking mandamus for quashing the observations – The prayer of
the applicants/petitioners was that in view of the observations made
in EEVFAM case on 30th July, 2018, the investigations be monitored
by another set of judges of the Supreme Court – Recusal of the D
bench was, therefore, sought on the ground that as a result of the
observations said to have been made, the applicants had a real
apprehension that either the investigations or the trial would be
tainted to their prejudice – Held: The apprehension of the applicants/
petitioners that justice will not be done to them is misplaced – The E
purpose of a continuing mandamus is only to ensure that there is no
interference during the course of investigations from anybody,
whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any other
pressure that could compromise the investigations – Yet another
purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure that the Investigating
Officer or the Investigating Team does not deviate from the natural F
course of investigations for whatever reason, either due to pressure
or due to a misdirection or some other extraneous reason – This is
the limited role of a Constitutional Court in monitoring investigations
in a continuing mandamus – Consequently, the apprehension that
the observations said to have been made on 30th July, 2018 would G
influence the SIT is erroneous – Observations made by any court
cannot impact on the investigations as long as they are conducted
by professionals – The SIT consist of professionals who will not be
swayed by any observations made by any court during the continuing
mandamus process – Mandamus.
H
299
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the applications, the Court
HELD: 1. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertains
to allegations of serious violations of the human rights of persons
described as insurgents. A large number of such persons were
killed in operations carried out by the Army, the paramilitary
B forces and the Manipur Police. Whether the death/killing of such
persons was justified or not is a matter of investigation by the
SIT. It was nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT was not
conducting fair investigations into the allegations. During the
hearing of EEVFAM and even after the decision was rendered on
substantive legal and factual issues, no allegation of any bias of
C any sort or any apprehension that justice will not be done or that
anybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is only at the
continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and
that too on the basis of certain observations said to have been
made by this Court. [Paras 20-21][312-C-F]
D 2. Once the judicial process has begun with the filing of the
final report or charge sheet as the case may be, the concerned
court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings.
No one can interfere in the course of judicial proceedings
otherwise it would amount to interference in the due course of
E justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason that
when investigations are complete and a final report or charge
sheet is filed, the Constitutional Court keeps its hands off any
further progress in the matter. As far as the EEVFAM case was
concerned, there was no allegation of any kind that any Trial Judge
dealing with the case has shown a lack of independence.
F Interference in the due course of justice or the administration of
justice would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore, it is
inappropriate for the applicants/petitioners to harbour any
apprehension that the Trial Judge(s) would be influenced by the
observations said to have been made by this Court on 30th July,
G 2018. The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps
unwittingly, questioning the fairness and independence of the
judiciary. [Para 26][313-E-H]
3. There can be no interference in investigations and the
courts cannot brook any interference in the judicial process. An
H
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 301

exception may occur, when there is an unjustified deviation from A
the natural course of investigations or illegal interference in the
judicial process. There is no basis for apprehension that the
observations said to have been made by this Court can impact on
the decisions to be taken by the SIT. The SIT is independent
and so far, no allegation of unfairness has been made against the
B
functioning of the SIT. Observations made by this Court or any
court for that matter cannot impact on the investigations as long
as they are conducted by professionals. The SIT consist of
professionals who will not be swayed by any observations made
by this Court during the continuing mandamus process.
[Paras 27, 29][314-A-C; D-E] C
4. The Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur
Police are made of sterner stuff and are disciplined forces strong
enough to take everything in their stride. There is no material to
support the theory of the Indian Army, paramilitary forces and
the Manipur Police being demoralised. It is only a submission D
made for some unfathomable reason. The continuing mandamus
must go on and the independence and integrity of the SIT and
the judges dealing with the final reports/charge-sheets must be
maintained. Therefore, even though there is no reason for the
applicants/petitioners to entertain any doubt that the SIT or the
judiciary would be influenced by the observations said to have E
been made by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, any
observations made or said to have been made on 30th July, 2018
during the implementation of the orders of this Court through a
continuing mandamus are not intended to and should not in any
manner be construed as compromising the independence, F
integrity and fairness of the SIT and the concerned judges.
Institutional integrity of the CBI and the judiciary is positively
required to be maintained. [Paras 30, 31, 32][314-G-H;
315-B-D]
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 : G
[2014] 9 SCR 965 ; Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v.
State of Gujarat (2016) 3 SCC 370 : [2016] 1 SCR
56 ; Captain Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal
(2009) 6 SCC 260 : [2009] 9 SCR 194 ; Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
(Recusal Matter) (2016) 5 SCC 808 ; R.K. Anand v. H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 : [2009]
11 SCR 1026 – distinguished
Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v.
Union of India (2016) 14 SCC 536; Naga People’s
Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) 2
B SCC 109 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 469 – referred to
Case Law Reference
(2016) 14 SCC 536 referred to Para 1
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 469 referred to Para 8
C
[2014] 9 SCR 965 distinguished Para 13
[2016] 1 SCR 56 distinguished Para 13
[2009] 9 SCR 194 distinguished Para 13
D
(2016) 5 SCC 808 distinguished Para 13
[2009] 11 SCR 1026 distinguished Para 13
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : CRL.M. P.
No. 125554 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 205 of 2018
E
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
With
Crl.M.P. No. 125550 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 206
F of 2018 and Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 205 & 206 of 2018.
Sachin Sharma, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
G
1. These writ petitions have been filed by some police personnel
of Manipur Police under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We have
been given to understand that these petitions have the support of a few
hundred officers from the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and
Manipur Police. These petitions are a fall-out of the decision rendered
H
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 303
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

by us in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. A
Union of India1 and subsequent orders passed therein by way of a
continuing mandamus. The prayer in the writ petitions is for an appropriate
writ, order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said to
have been made by us which, according to the petitioners, violate their
rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending a decision in
B
the writ petitions, it is prayed that we should not proceed with the
continuing mandamus in the case.
2. Interlocutory applications have also been moved in these writ
petitions specifically for a direction that we should recuse from hearing
these writ petitions which should be placed for consideration before
another Bench of this Court. C

3. Submissions were made before us in the interlocutory
applications for recusal but we find no merit in these applications and
therefore dismiss them.
The background D
th
4. On 8 July, 2016 we delivered judgement in Extra-Judicial
Execution Victim Families Association. v. Union of India. We noted
the allegations made in the writ petition in the following words:
“The allegations made in the writ petition concern what are
described as fake encounters or extra-judicial executions said to E
have been carried out by Manipur Police and the Armed Forces
of the Union, including the Army. According to the police and
security forces, the encounters are genuine and the victims were
militants or terrorists or insurgents killed in counter-insurgency or
anti-terrorist operations. Whether the allegations are completely F
or partially true or are entirely rubbish and whether the encounter
is genuine or not is yet to be determined, but in any case there is
a need to know the truth.
The right to know the truth has gained increasing importance over
the years. This right was articulated by the United Nations High
G
Commissioner for Human Rights in the Sixty-second Session of
the Human Rights Commission. In a study on the right to the
truth, it was stated in Para 8 that though the right had its origins in
enforced disappearances, it has gradually extended to include extra-
judicial executions. This paragraph reads as follows:
1
(2016) 14 SCC 536 H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A “With the emergence of the practice of enforced
disappearances in the 1970s, the concept of the right to the
truth became the object of increasing attention from
international and regional human rights bodies and special
procedures mandate-holders. In particular, the ad hoc working
group on human rights in Chile, the Working Group on Enforced
B
or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) developed an important
doctrine on this right with regard to the crime of enforced
disappearances. These mechanisms initially based the legal
source for this right upon Articles 32 and 33 of the Additional
C Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12-8-1949.
Commentators have taken the same approach. However,
although this right was initially referred to solely within the
context of enforced disappearances, it has been gradually
extended to other serious human rights violations, such as extra-
judicial executions and torture. The Human Rights Committee
D
has urged a State party to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights to guarantee that the victims of human
rights violations know the truth with respect to the acts
committed and know who the perpetrators of such acts were.”
[ Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Study on the
E right to the truth. Report of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights; 8-2-2006. Commission
on Human Rights, Sixty-second Session, Item 17 of the
provisional agenda.]
It is necessary to know the truth so that the law is tempered with
F justice. The exercise for knowing the truth mandates ascertaining
whether fake encounters or extra-judicial executions have taken
place and if so, who are the perpetrators of the human rights
violations and how can the next of kin be commiserated with and
what further steps ought to be taken, if any.”
G 5. While concluding the decision, we observed that accurate and
complete information had not been made available in respect of each of
the cases that the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association
or EEVFAM had complained about. Accordingly, we observed and
directed as follows:

H
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 305
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

“Unfortunately, we have not been given accurate and complete A
information about each of the 1528 cases that the petitioners have
complained about. Therefore, there is a need to obtain and collate
this information before any final directions can be given. The
learned amicus has told us that there are 15 cases out of 62 in
which it has been held by the Justice Hegde Commission or by
B
the judicial inquiries conducted at the instance of the Gauhati High
Court that the encounters were faked. On the other hand, NHRC
has informed us that there are 31 cases out of 62 in which it has
been concluded that the encounters were not genuine and
compensation awarded to the next of kin of the victims or the
award of compensation is pending. C
Therefore, as a first step, we direct:
Of the 62 cases that the petitioners have documented, their
representative and the learned amicus will prepare a simple tabular
statement indicating whether in each case a judicial enquiry or an
inquiry by NHRC or an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry D
Act, 1952 has been held and the result of the inquiry and whether
any first information report or complaint or petition has been filed
by the next of kin of the deceased. We request NHRC to render
assistance to the learned amicus in this regard. We make it clear
that since a magisterial enquiry is not a judicial inquiry and, as E
mentioned above, it is not possible to attach any importance to the
magisterial enquiries, the tabular statement will not include
magisterial enquiries.
The representative of the petitioners and the learned amicus will
revisit the remaining cases (1528 minus 62) and carry out an F
identical exercise as above. This exercise is required to be
conducted for eliminating those cases in which there is no
information about the identity of the victim or the place of
occurrence or any other relevant detail and then present an
accurate and faithful chart of cases in a simple tabular form.”
G
6. Subsequently, on 14th July, 20172 we took up the matter again,
inter alia, for ascertaining whether the first step that we had directed in
our judgement and order of 8th July, 2016 had been acted upon. While
considering this, we recorded what could be described as the background
of the case in the following words:
2
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 417
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A “In the present petitions, the allegation was that 1528 persons had
been killed in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel
in uniform of the armed forces of the Union. By our judgment and
order dated 8-7-2016 [Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families
Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536: (2016) 14 SCC 578
(2)] we respectfully followed the view laid down by a Constitution
B
Bench of this Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human
Rights v. Union of India [Naga People’s Movement of Human
Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109]. The Constitution
Bench held that an allegation of use of excessive force or
retaliatory force by uniformed personnel resulting in the
C death of any person necessitates a thorough enquiry into
the incident. We were of the opinion that even the “Dos
and Don’ts” and the “Ten Commandments” of the Chief of
Army Staff believe in this ethos and accept this principle.
However, after considering the submissions at law, we found that
the documentation was inadequate to immediately order any
D
inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners and therefore
directed them to complete the documentation indicating whether
the allegations were based on any judicial enquiry or an enquiry
conducted by the National Human Rights Commission or an
enquiry conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
E A tabular statement has since been filed by the learned counsel
for the petitioners and this statement has been accepted by the
learned Amicus Curiae and no objection was raised by the Union
of India or by the State of Manipur. We therefore proceed on the
basis of the tabular statement before us.
F The petitioners have been able to gather information with regard
to 655 deaths out of 1528 alleged in the writ petitions. The break-
up is as follows:

G

H
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 307
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

We have perused the tabular statement given with regard to cases A
with written complaints, oral complaints and eyewitness accounts
as well as family claimed cases but find that apart from a simple
allegation being made, no substantive steps appear to have been
taken by either lodging a first information report (FIR) or by filing
a writ petition in the High Court concerned or making a complaint
B
to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The
allegations being very general in nature, we do not think it
appropriate to pass any direction for the time being in regard to
the cases concerning these written complaints, oral complaints,
cases with eyewitness accounts and family claimed cases. It is
not that every single allegation must necessarily be inquired into. C
It must be remembered that we are not dealing with individual
cases but a systemic or institutional response relating to
constitutional criminal law.” (Emphasis supplied by us)
7. Thereafter, having considered the case law and submissions
made by the learned Amicus and learned counsel for the parties including D
the learned Attorney General, we held as follows:
“Having considered the issues in their entirety, we are of the opinion
that it would be appropriate if the Central Bureau of Investigation
(or CBI) is required to look into these fake encounters or use of
excessive or retaliatory force. Accordingly, the Director of CBI E
is directed to nominate a group of five officers to go through the
records of the cases mentioned in the three tables given above,
lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the investigations into the
same by 31-12-2017 and prepare charge-sheets, wherever
necessary. The entire groundwork has already been done either
by the Commissions of Inquiry or by a Judicial Inquiry or by the F
Gauhati or Manipur High Court or by NHRC. We leave it to the
Special Investigation Team to utilise the material already gathered,
in accordance with law. We expect the State of Manipur to extend
full cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigation Team.
We also expect the Union of India to render full assistance to the G
Special Investigation Team to complete the investigation at the
earliest without any unnecessary hindrances or obstacles. The
Director of CBI will nominate the team and inform us of its
composition within two weeks.”

H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 8. Notwithstanding the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of
India and the explicit directions given by this Court in Extra-Judicial
Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India [EEVFAM]
the CBI was seemingly following up rather casually and taking its own
time to complete investigations, which were required to be completed by
B
31st December, 2017 and prepare charge-sheets/final reports, wherever
necessary.
9. In our order of 8th January, 2018, we noted that on 23rd November,
2017 the CBI had asked for increasing the strength of the Special
Investigation Team (SIT) and we acceded to that request. We noted
C that it appeared to us that the matter was not being taken up by the CBI
and the SIT with the seriousness that it deserves.
10. Thereafter the EEVFAM case was adjourned a couple of
times and on 27th July 2018 we observed that no final report had been
filed but approval was granted in respect of one of them on 24th July,
D 2018 and in respect of another, approval was granted on 26 th July, 2018.
Two other cases were pending for approval. We also observed that the
investigations were taking an unduly long time and that we were not
satisfied with the progress made by the CBI so far. Consequently, we
required the Director of the CBI to let us know the steps that must be
E taken to ensure that the investigations are completed early and final
reports are filed as expeditiously as possible. For this purpose, we required
the personal appearance of the Director of the CBI on 30th July, 2018.
11. On 30th July, 2018 the Director of the CBI appeared in Court.
He informed us that two charge-sheets had been filed in which there
F were 14 accused persons and all of them had been charged with an
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read
with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (murder and criminal
conspiracy). It was also pointed out that these accused have also been
charged with an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian
Penal Code (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving
G false information to screen offender). He also informed us that some
more final reports/charge-sheets would be filed making a total of seven
final reports/charge-sheets. On 30th July, 2018 we also recorded the
submission of learned counsel for EEVFAM that since the accused
persons have been charged with offences punishable as above, they
H would normally be arrested and that where investigations are going on in
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 309
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

respect of similar offences, custodial interrogation would be necessary. A
We recorded the submission but left it entirely to the discretion of the
Director of the CBI and the SIT to take a call on whether arrests should
be made and whether custodial interrogation should be carried out. We
may mention that we have not been informed whether and if, as of now,
any arrests have been made and whether and if any custodial interrogation
B
has been carried out.
The present applications
12. It is in the above background that during the continuing
mandamus hearing of the petition filed by EEVFAM on 30th July, 2018
certain oral observations were made and attributed to us. We need not C
go into the correctness of the text or otherwise of the observations made
or into the context in which they were made. The fact of the matter is
that the observations said to have been made were widely reported in
the press with varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. The
observations led to the filing of the present two writ petitions. The prayer
made in both the writ petitions is identical. We are not, for the present, D
concerned with the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petitions or
the grant of final relief to the petitioners herein. What we are concerned
with are the applications for directions moved in both the writ petitions.
The prayer made in these applications reads as follows:
“direct that the Hon’ble Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice E
Madan B. Lokur and Hon’ble Mr Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
hearing of the present writ petition recuse itself and that the writ
petition be placed for hearing by another Bench of this Hon’ble
Court in accordance with law.”
13. In the applications, the petitioners make a reference to various F
newspaper reports and it is submitted that the reported observations
coming from the highest court of the country have created a real
apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the impartial manner in
which EEVFAM is being heard by this Court. It is further submitted that
hearing that case by another Bench of this Court is essential to subserve G
the cause of justice but the prayer should not be construed as casting
aspersions on the Bench. It is further submitted and reiterated that there
is a real apprehension in the mind of the applicants about the manner in
which the Bench is proceeding with the case and it is submitted that the
apprehension is not based on any ipse dixit but is based on reports of the
proceedings held on 30th July, 2018 widely reported in the print and H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A electronic media, which clearly shows that the ‘guilt’ of each and every
one of the applicants/petitioners has been prejudged, though only a police
report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has
been filed. The applicants/petitioners have referred to a few decisions/
case laws in the application and their learned counsel, during the course
of hearing of the application, referred to a few other decisions. All this
B
was supplemented by written submissions. The principal decisions relied
on were: (i) Manoj Narula v. Union of India 3, (ii) Usmangani
Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat4, (iii) Captain Amarinder Singh
v. Prakash Singh Badal5 and (iv) Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter).6 Some
C decisions of foreign jurisdictions have also been referred to and relied
on.
Submissions
14. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Union
of India supported the prayer made in the applications but did not file
D any written submissions. It was orally submitted by the learned Attorney
General that the observations made by this Court had a demoralising
effect on the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police
or in any event, it had affected the morale of these forces in their fight
against insurgency.
E 15. In response to these submissions, it was contended by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of EEVFAM that the allegations made by
the petitioners were reckless and without reading the articles in the
newspapers. It was also submitted that the allegations hurled at the Court
were of a serious nature and ought to have been made after a careful
F study and cross-checking the facts from those who were present in
court, but nothing of that sort seems to have been done in the present
case. The learned counsel then placed reliance upon a few decisions of
this Court on the subject of recusal of judges from a case. Apart from
giving his interpretation to the decisions cited by learned counsel for the
applicants/petitioners, it was submitted by learned counsel for EEVFAM
G that the attempt of the applicants/petitioners was to put pressure on this
Court to keep its hands off the case.
3
(2014) 9 SCC 1
4
(2016) 3 SCC 370
5
(2009) 6 SCC 260
H 6
(2016) 5 SCC 808
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 311
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

16. Learned Amicus submitted that the applications filed by the A
applicants/petitioners were mala fide and amounted to gross forum
shopping. It was submitted that the applications as well as the writ petitions
be dismissed with exemplary costs. It was submitted that even though
the learned Attorney General supported the prayer for recusal, he clarified
that none of the parties were questioning the integrity or fairness in the
B
investigations carried out by the SIT appointed by the Director of the
CBI on the directions of this Court. She further submitted that the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners were based on a selective
reading of the news reports and even assuming what was attributed to
this Court was correct, the observations could not hamper or influence
the trial of the officers who are charge-sheeted. She pointed out that on C
the issue of arrest of the accused persons, this Court had explicitly left
the matter to the discretion of the Director of the CBI and the SIT. She
submitted that learned counsel for the petitioners had a duty as an officer
of the court to refrain from making allegations of bias on flimsy grounds
particularly in view of the order passed on 30th July, 2018. Learned Amicus
D
referred to certain decisions on the subject of recusal and submitted that
given the peculiar circumstances of the case, monitoring the investigation
by the CBI or the SIT was necessary. Finally, it was submitted that if the
present applications are allowed, then in all cases where judges of this
Court make enquiries which are probing or even inconvenient to one of
the parties in the matter, they could be compelled to recuse themselves. E
Learned Amicus drew attention to R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High
Court.7
17. The effective prayer of the applicants/petitioners is that in
view of the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30th
July, 2018 the investigations should be monitored by another set of judges F
of this Court. Our recusal is sought on the ground that as a result of the
observations said to have been made, the applicants/petitioners have a
real apprehension that either the investigations or the trial (if any) would
be tainted to their prejudice.
18. Having heard the learned Attorney General, learned counsel G
and learned Amicus and having gone through the written submissions
filed, we are of the view that the apprehension of the applicants/petitioners
that justice will not be done to them is misplaced if not unfounded.

7
(2009) 8 SCC 106 H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Decision
19. The decisions referred to and relied upon have been fully
considered by us. The discussion on recusal has been exhaustively dealt
with in the cited decisions and there is nothing to add to it. But we find
a crucial distinguishing feature in the case of EEVFAM and the cited
B cases.
20. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertains to allegations
of serious violations of the human rights of persons described as
insurgents. A large number of such persons were killed in operations
carried out by the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police.
C Whether the death/killing of such persons was justified or not is a matter
of investigation by the SIT. It is nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT
was not conducting fair investigations into the allegations. On the contrary,
the learned Attorney General submitted that the integrity or fairness of
the investigations were not in question. As mentioned above, no one
disputed this.
D
21. The distinguishing feature is this: The substantive legal and
factual issues raised in EEVFAM have already been decided by us and
what remains is the continuing mandamus requiring implementation of
the orders of the Court. During the hearing of EEVFAM and even after
the decision was rendered on substantive legal and factual issues, no
E allegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will not
be done or that anybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is only
at the continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and that
too on the basis of certain observations said to have been made by this
Court.
F 22. What is pending at the continuing mandamus stage is the
implementation of the orders of the court which necessitate a fair
investigation by the CBI and the SIT constituted by the Director of the
CBI. There is no allegation of any nature with respect to the impartiality
and integrity of the SIT. Indeed, the learned Attorney General made it
G clear that no one was disputing the capability, expertise and fairness of
the CBI and the investigations carried out by the SIT.
23. Even during the hearing of the applications and in the written
submissions, no doubt has been cast on the integrity and fairness of the
investigations. In any event, we make it clear that the law of the land is
H
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 313
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

quite explicit that no one, and that means no one, can interfere in the A
investigations being carried out by the Investigating Officer or an
Investigating Team. This law is well settled and does not need any re-
consideration. The purpose of a continuing mandamus is only to ensure
that there is no interference during the course of investigations from
anybody, whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any
B
other pressure (including, as it seems, ‘judicial pressure’) that could
compromise the investigations. It is only when the Investigating Officer
or the Investigating Team is given a free hand that the investigations will
be meaningful, fair and with integrity.
24. Yet another purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure
that the Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team (as the case C
may be) does not deviate from the natural course of investigations for
whatever reason, either due to pressure or due to a misdirection or some
other extraneous reason. This is the limited role of a Constitutional
Court in monitoring investigations in a continuing mandamus.
25. Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said to D
have been made by this Court on 30th July, 2018 would influence the SIT
is erroneous.
26. It is equally clear that once the judicial process has begun
with the filing of the final report or charge sheet as the case may be, the
concerned court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings. E
No one, and that again means no one, can interfere in the course of
judicial proceedings otherwise it would amount to interference in the
due course of justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason
that when investigations are complete and a final report or charge sheet
is filed, the Constitutional Court keeps its hands off any further progress F
in the matter. We are fortunate to have an independent judiciary and as
far as the EEVFAM case is concerned there has been no allegation of
any kind that any Trial Judge dealing with the case has shown a lack of
independence. Interference in the due course of justice or the
administration of justice would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore,
it is inappropriate for the applicants/petitioners to harbour any G
apprehension that the Trial Judge(s) would be influenced by the
observations said to have been made by this Court on 30 th July, 2018.
The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps unwittingly, questioning
the fairness and independence of the judiciary.
H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 27. The upshot of this discussion is that there can be no
interference in investigations and the courts cannot brook any interference
in the judicial process. An exception may occur as we have noticed
above, when there is an unjustified deviation from the natural course of
investigations or illegal interference in the judicial process. Such a situation
would be rare and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis
B
and it is to pre-empt this that the Constitutional Courts monitor
investigations on extraordinary occasions. Consequently, the apprehension
expressed by the applicants/petitioners that due to the observations said
to have been made by this Court there would be interference in the
investigations by the SIT all interference in the due judicial process by
C the courses not real or justified.
28. The decisions cited before us by learned counsel and learned
Amicus do not deal with or concern the situation confronting us.
29. A few other contentions have been urged before us by learned
counsel for the applicants/petitioners. It is submitted that the observations
D said to have been made by this Court can impact on the decisions to be
taken by the SIT. We do not find any basis for any such apprehension.
The SIT is independent and so far, no allegation of unfairness has been
made against the functioning of the SIT. Observations made by this
Court or any court for that matter cannot impact on the investigations as
E long as they are conducted by professionals and we have no doubt that
the SIT does consist of professionals who will not be swayed by any
observations made by this Court during the continuing mandamus process.
30. It was also submitted and this submission was supported by
the learned Attorney General that the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces
F and the Manipur Police have been demoralised by the observations made
by this Court. This is a rather overbroad submission. In any event, in our
opinion, it should be clear to everyone that officers and personnel of the
Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the State Police are made of much
sterner stuff than is sought to be projected and they can hardly be
demoralised by observations said to have been made by anybody. It is
G unfortunate that a bogey of demoralization of the Indian Army,
paramilitary forces and the State Police is being raised. We are unable
to comprehend the reason for this. As mentioned earlier, the Indian
Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police are made of sterner
stuff and are disciplined forces strong enough to take everything in their
H stride. To contend that some observations said to have been made by
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 315
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

this Court have demoralized the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces A
and the Manipur Police is suggestive of a weakness in them. Be that as
it may, this is really stretching the argument to the vanishing point.
31. That apart, there is no material to support the theory of the
Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police being
demoralised. It is only a submission made for some unfathomable reason. B
32. The continuing mandamus must go on and the independence
and integrity of the SIT and the judges dealing with the final reports/
charge-sheets must be maintained. Therefore, even though there is no
reason for the applicants/petitioners to entertain any doubt that the SIT
or the judiciary would be influenced by the observations said to have C
been made by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, we make it
absolutely clear that any observations made or said to have been made
on 30th July, 2018 during the implementation of the orders of this Court
through a continuing mandamus are not intended to and should not in
any manner be construed as compromising the independence, integrity
and fairness of the SIT and the concerned judges. Institutional integrity D
of the CBI and the judiciary is positively required to be maintained.
33. We see no merit in these applications and they are accordingly
dismissed. The writ petitions be listed for preliminary hearing on
26th November, 2018 at 2 PM.
E
Devika Gujral Applications dismissed.

F

G

H