Holding

The Supreme Court held that it could not entertain the application; the matter of sanction lies with the magistrate/appropriate court, and the Court’s earlier directions suffice, leading to dismissal of the application.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition filed by environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta concerning the Taj Heritage Corridor project, where the CBI had investigated alleged irregularities involving the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati, and Minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui. After the CBI submitted its report, a Special Judge directed the agency to obtain sanction from the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for prosecuting the officials. The Governor refused to grant the sanction, and an amicus curiae sought a writ of mandamus directing the Court to set aside the Governor’s order. The Court held that once a final report under Section 173(1) CrPC is filed, only the magistrate can decide on sanction and prosecution, and that its earlier order of 27 November 2006 already covered the necessary directions. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the Governor’s decision and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can set aside the Governor of Uttar Pradesh’s order refusing sanction under Section 197 CrPC in a public‑interest litigation.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the CBI to proceed with prosecution without the Governor’s sanction.
What is the scope of judicial intervention after a CBI investigation and filing of a final report under Section 173(1) CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(1), s. 197(1)
Constitution of Indias. Article 32, s. Article 49, s. Article 51A

Subjects

public interest litigationwrit of mandamusSection 197 CrPCsanction for prosecutionmagistrate jurisdictionCriminal Procedure Codejudicial interventionTaj Heritage CorridorCBI investigation

Judgment

A M.C.MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 10, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950:

C Article 32 read with Artic~~s 49(8) and 51A-Scope of-"Taj
Corridor Scam "-Writ petition as public interest litigation for issuance
of writ of mandamus-Pursuant to direction of Court FIR registered
leading to investigation into role of Chief Minister and a Minister of
State and ultimately case coming before Special Court-Governor of
D State refusing to accord sanction-IA by amicus curiae for setting aside
order ofGovernor-HELD: Once a final report has been filed in terms
ofs. I 73(1) Cr.PC, it is the Magistrate alone who can take appropriate
decision in the matter-Direction which could be issued had already
been issued by Supreme Court in its earlier order-If no sanction of
Governor was required or ifhe has committed an error in passing the
E order, appropriate Court would be entitled to deal therewith--,-Code
ofCriminal Procedure, 19 73-s. l 73 (1 )-Public Interest Litigation.
In the "Taj Heritage Corridor Project" case, on the report of
the CBI pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, an FIR -1 . ,
F was registered and the role of the then Chief Minister and the
Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh was
investigated by the CBI. For further course to be adopted directions
were given by the Supreme Court on 27.11.2006* and the said order
was complied with. The Special Judge directed the CBI to obtain
G sanction of the Governor of the State, who refused to accord
sanction. The amicus curiae who was assisting the Court filed the · "(""
instant IA, inter alia, contending that the Supreme Court, in terms
of the provisions of Article 49 of the Constitution oflndia should set
aside the order of the Governor ofUttar Pradesh refusing to accord
H 1060
!- M.C. MEHTAv. UNION OF INDIA 1061

sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister and the Minister as, A
keeping in view the existing political scenario, the CBI may not show
further interest in the matter.

Dismissing the application, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Judiciary may step in where it finds that the actions B
on the part of the Legislature or the Executive are illegal or
unconstitutional but the same by itself would not mean that public
interest litigation, in a case of this nature, should be converted into
an adversarial litigation. The jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ
of continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is c
carried out. Once the Court satisfies itself that a proper
investigation has been carried out, it would not venture to take over
the functions of the Magistrate or pass any order which would
interfere with its judicial functions. Once a final report has been filed
in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal D
Procedure, 1973 it is the Magistrate and Magistrate alone who can
take appropriate decision in the matter one way or the other. A
judicial order passed by a Magistrate may be right or wrong, but
having regard to the hierarchy of the courts, the matter which would
fall for consideration before the higher court should not be a subject E
matter of a decision of this Court at this stage.
[Para 8] [1065-D, E, F, G; 1066-A]

1.2. Any direction which could be issued, has already been issued
by the Court on 27.11.2006* and it need not go further than what
has been said therein. If no sanction of the Governor was required F
or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the
appropriate court, would be entitled to deal therewith.
[Para 11and13] [1067-D; 1068-A, B]

*MC Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India and Ors., G
[2006] Supp. 9 SCR 683=[2007] 1 SCC 110, relied on.

Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India, [1998] 1 SCC 226;
Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' VIII v. Union ofIndia, [2006] 6 SCC 613
and Union oflndiav.Prakash P. HindujaandAnr., [2003] 6SCC195,
referred to. H
);
- \
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. NO. 465. 'r
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia)
B
Ghoolam, E. Vahanvati, S.G.. A. Sharan, A.S.G., Jyotindra Mishra
Adv. Genl., Ajay Siwach, A.A.G., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G.,
Dipankar Gupta, M.N. Rao, K.K. Venugopal, Dinesh Dwivedi, Krishan
Mahajan, (A.C.), Shilpa Chauhan, K. Uma Shankar, Rajesh Singh,
C A.D.N. Rao, Devadatt Kamat, P. Parmeshwaran, Gaurav Agrawal,
Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Rekha Pandey, R.C. Kathia, E.C. Agrawala,
Gaurav Goel, Amit Kumar Sharma, Nikhil Nayyar, Ankit Singhal, B.V.
Balramdas, Pradeep Mishra, T. Mahipal, Suraj Singh, Mohd. Taiyab
Khan, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Kr. Mishra, Ashok
D K. Srivastava, Saurabh Trivedi, T.V. George, S. Wasim, A. Qadri, Vijay
Pratap Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, Vijay Panjwani, Santosh Kumar, Dr.
Kailash Chand, Rakesh K. Khanna, Dr. Rashmi Khanna, Jahanvi Warah,
Reetesh Singh, Anil Katiyar, Atishi Dipankar, Ajay Kumar Aggaiwal, Binu
Tamta, Rajiv Tyagi, Ranjan Mozumdar, Chanchal Biswal, V.K. Verma,
E Pranab Kumar Mullick, K.K. Mohan, Vishwajit Singh, Mridula Ray
Bhardwaj, S. Dutta for the appearing parties, M.C. Mehta, Petitioner-
In-Person and Ajay K. Agrawal (In-Person).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Whether this Bench should consider the
F
correctness of an order passed by the Governor ofUttar Pradesh refusing
to grant sanction for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati and Shri Naseemuddin
Siddiqui is the prime question involved in this application.
2. A public interest litigation was entertained by this Court in a writ
G application filed by the writ petitioner. This Court with a view to ensure r'
proper maintenance of cultural heritage oflndia as also the ecology has
been passing orders in the writ petition from time to time.
3. A project known as 'Taj Heritage Corridor Project' was initiated
by the Government ofUttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which
H
M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA [SINHA, J.] 1063

i the same was undertaken was to divert the River Yamuna and to reclaim A
75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal and use the
reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement
activities. The said activities on the part of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
was brought to the notice of this Court. An exception thereto was taken.
A detailed inquiry was directed to be made by the Central Bureau of B
Investigation (CBI). Upon consideration of the report submitted before it
by CBI, this Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 directed it to register a
First Information Report and make further investigation in accordance with
law. CBI investigated into the matter, including the roles played by Ms.
Mayawati, the then Chief Minister, and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the C •
then Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Investigations were also carried out against some officers.
CBI was later on asked to furnish a self-contained note as regards
its findings against the erring officers and holders of public posts. A
detailed report was submitted by it. A question arose as to what directions, D
if any, should be issued by this Court having regard to the conflict in
opinions expressed by different authorities of CBI in regard to Ms.
Mayawati and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui.
The said question was considered by this Court in its judgment and E
order dated 27.11.2006 in MC Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union
of India and Ors., (2007] 1 SCC 110.
4. Indisputably, the said order ofthis Court has been complied with.
-( r It now appears that the learned Special Judge directed CBI to obtain
sanction of the Governor ofUttar Pradesh. By reason of an order dated F
03.06.2007 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh has refused to accord the
same.
5. Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae, who has been
assisting this Court very ably in the matter, filed an application, inter alia, G
praying for :
"In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above it
is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order :
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. ~
A (i) Concerning the legal validity of the CBI seeking a sanction for
the prosecution of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati
and Minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui under Section 197 Cr.
P.C. by calling for the records of the materials it placed before
the Governor for seeking such sanction.
B (ii) Directing the CBI to produce a copy of the June 3, 2007
sanction order of His Excellency the Governor of U.P. passed
in connection with the case pending before the Special Judge/
competent court based on FIR RC 0062003AOOl8.
(iii) Passing appropriate directions on the legal validity or otherwise
c of the June 3, 2007 order of His Excellency the U.P. Governor
refusing under Section 197(1) Cr. P.C. sanction for the
prosecution of Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati and Minister
Naseemuddin Siddiqui in relation to FIR RC 0062003A0018
registered against them by the CBI pursuant to the September
D
18, 2003 order of this Hon'ble Court in I.A. 376 in CWP
13381/1984 and the investigation on which with the opinion
of the CBI Superintendent of Police was directed by this
Hon'ble Court on Nov. 27, 2006 to be placed before the
concerned court/Special Judge for deciding the matter in
E accordance with law.
(iv) Declaring that the sanction orders passed under Section
197(1) Cr. P.C. are in the public domain and hence cannot
be classified as secret." 1 -.
F 6. Mr. Mahajan, in support of the said application, would submit
that the task of protection of cultural heritage having been undertaken by
this Court and keeping in view the provisions of Article 49 of the
Constitution oflndia, the Court should interfere in the matter and set aside
the order of the Governor ofUttar Pradesh refusing to accord sanction
G to prosecute Ms. Mayawati and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddqui, keeping in
view the political scenario in the country, as CBI may not show any further
interest in the matter at all.
It was urged that in a case ofthis nature, sanction in terms of Section
H 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not imperative .

.......
I M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA [SINHA,J.] 1065·

7. No doubt it is an unique case. In exercise of its jurisdiction under A
Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia and having regard to Article 49
and clause (g) of Article 5 lA of the Constitution oflndia, this Court while
entertaining the public interest litigation at the instance of the writ petitioner
had been taking all steps which have been thought necessary and proper
in the matter. The question which, however, has arisen for our B
consideration is, should we undertake such an exercise. No doubt, a First
Information Report has been lodged at the instance of this Court. Yet again
this Court thought it fit to issue requisite directions in its order dated
27.11.2006 directing the learned Special Judge to apply its mind on the
materials collected during investigation by CBI and pass appropriate orders c
thereupon. This Court has been exercising its jurisdiction in public interest.
It has been exercising its jurisdiction to issue a writ of continuous
mandamus in the light of the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain and
Ors. v. Union of India, [1998] 1 SCC 226.
8. We have no doubt in our mind that judiciary may step in where D
it finds the actions on the part of the Legislature or the Executive are illegal
or unconstitutional but the same by itself would not mean that public
interest litigation, in a case of this nature, should be converted into an
adversarial litigation. The jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ of
continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is carried E
out. Once the court satisfies itself that a proper investigation has been
carried out, it would not venture to take over the functions of the
Magistrate or pass any order which would interfere with its judicial
functions. Constitutional scheme of this countty envisages dispute resolution
mechanism by an independent and impartial tribunal. No authority, save F
and except a superior court in the hierarchy of judiciary, can issue any
direction which otherwise take away the discretionary jurisdiction of any
court of law. Once a final report has been filed in terms of sub-section
(1) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the Magistrate
and Magistrate alone who can take appropriate decision in the matter one G
way or the other. If it errs while passing a judicial order, the same may
be a subject matter of appeal or judicial review. There may a possibility
. of the prosecuting agencies not approaching the higher forum against an
order passed by the learned Magistrate, but the same by itself would not
confer a jurisdiction on this Court to step in. We should not entertain the H .·

'
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A application of the learned Amicus Curiae on such presupposition. A judicial
order passed by a Magistrate may be right or wrong, but having regard
to the hierarchy of the courts, the matter which would fall for consideration
before the higher court should not be a subject matter of a decision of
this bench. In an unlikely event of the interested parties in not questioning
B such orders before the higl:er forum, an independent public interest
litigation may be filed. Instances are not unknown where this Court has
entertained public intere~t litigation in cases involving similar question under
Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. (See Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an'
VIII v. Union of India, (2006] 6 SCC 613].
c 9. It will not be out of place to mention that in Vineet Narain (supra),
this Court categorically stated that unless a proper investigation is made
followed by a proper prosecution under the general law applicable to such
investigation, the rule oflaw will lose its significance. This Court in its order
dated 27.11.2006 upon noticing Vineet Narain (supra) and Union of
D India. v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr., ((2003) 6 SCC 195] held :
"26. Analysis of the above judgments shows that there is a clear-
cut and well-demarcated sphere of activities in the field of crime
detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the
field reserved for the executive through the Police Department, the
E
superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The
executive is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over the law
and order situation. It is obliged to prevent crime. If an offence is
committed allegedly, it is ·the State's duty to investigate into the 1 )
offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates through
F the Police Department and finds an offence having been committed,
it is its duty to collect evidence for the purposes of proving the
offence. Once that is completed, the investigating officer submits
report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the
offence under Section 190 CrPC and his duty comes to an end.
G Therefore, there are well-defined and well-demarcated functions
in the field of crime detect ion and their subsequent adjudication
by the court. Lastly, the term "investigation" under Section 173(2)
of the Criminal Procedure Code includes opinion of the officer in
charge of the police station as to whether there is sufficient evidence
H
I M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA [SINHA, J.] 1067

f or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the A
case to the court concerned or not. This opinion is not legal
evidence. At the stage of Section 173(2) the question of
interpretation of legal evidence does not arise. In any event, that
function is that of the courts."

10. The parameters within which this Court should function in such
B
matters are, therefore, well-defined.
11. It is one thing to say that this Court will not refrain from exercising
its jurisdiction from issuing any direction for protection of cultural heritage
and the ecology and environment; but then in discharge of the said duty, C
this Court should not take upon itself the task of determining the guilt or
otherwise of an individual involved in the criminal proceeding. It should
not embark upon an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal
misconduct so as to forn1 an opinion one way or the other so as to prima
facie determine guilt of a person or otherwise. Any direction which could D
be issued, in our opinion, has already been issued by us on 27 .11.2006,
stating:·
"34. We, accordingly, direct CBI to place the evidence/material
collected by the investigating team along with the report of the SP
as required under Section 173(2) CrPC before the court/Special E
Judge concerned who will decide the matter in accordance with
law. It is necessary to add that, in this case, we were concerned
with ensuring proper and honest performance of duty by CBI and
our above observations and reasons are confined only to that
aspect of the case and they should not be understood as our F
opinion on the merits of accusation being investigated. We do not
wish to express any opinion on the recommendations of the SP. It
is made clear that none of the other opinions/recommendations
including that of the Attorney General for India, CVC shall be
forwarded to the courJSpecial Judge concerned." G

12. We do not think that we should go beyond the same.

13. We may observe that while entertaining a public interest litigation
in a given case, this Court may exercise a jurisdiction to set aside the
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A decision of a constitutional authority, but we are not concerned with such 'Y
a situation. We, therefore, are of the view that we need not go further
than what we have already said in our order dated 27 .11.2006 to go into
the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Governor. If no sanction
of the Governor was required or ifhe has committed an error in passing
B the said order, the appropriate court, in our opinion, would be entitled to
deal therewith, but not this Bench.
14. We, therefore, are of the opinion that this Bench should not
entertain the application filed by the learned Amicus Curiae. The said
application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
c
RP. Application dismissed.