SHAHID BALWAversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                     [2013] 11 S.C.R. 51

                      SHAHID BALWA                              A
                              v.
             UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
            (Writ Petition (C) No. 548 of 2012)
                   SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
                                                                B
   [G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

      Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 and 142 - 2G
Spectrum Scam Case -Day-to-day trial - Orders passed by
Supreme Court in exercise of powers conferred u/Arts. 136 C
and 142 of the Constitution, while monitoring the investigation
of 2G related cases - If liable to be recalled - Held: The
purpose and object of passing the impugned orders was for
larger public interest and for speedy trial, that too on day-to-
day basis which is reflected not only in the various provisions D
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but also falls within the
realm of judicial accountability - No reason to lay down any
guidelines in a Court monitored investigation - A superior
court exercising the appellate power or constitutional power,
if gives a direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or E
complete the trial in a specific time by giving direction is not
interfering with the trial proceedings but only facilitating the
speedy trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution
- In the case at hand, charge-sheet was filed only in one
among the various 2G related cases - The Supreme Court,
                                                                 F
while passing the impugned order, only directed speedy trial
and, that too, on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed
as interference with the trial proceedings - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(1)(d) - Penal Code, 1860 -
s.120-B.
                                                                 G
      The CBI lodged FIR alleging that during the years
2000-2008 certain officials of the Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) entered into a criminal
conspiracy with certain private companies and misused
                                51                               H
    52      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   their official position in the grant of Unified Access
    Licenses causing wrongful loss to the nation, to the tune
    of more than Rs.22,000 crores. Following that, the CBI
    registered what was described as the 2G Spectrum Scam
    Case under Section 120B IPC, 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
B
       Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 was filed under Article
  136 of the Constitution, inter alia praying for a Court
  monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of
  Investigation (CBI) or by a Special Investigating Team into
  the 2G Spectrum Scam. This Court agreed for a Court
C monitored investigation; and, on 10-02-2011, passed an
  order stating that since this Court is monitoring the
  investigation of 2G Spectrum Scam, no Court shall pass
  any order which may, in any manner, impede the
  investigation being carried out by the CBI and the
D Directorate of Enforcement. Meanwhile, two separate
  notifications dated 28-03-2011 were issued in terms of
  Section 3(1) the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the
  Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for
  establishment of the Special Court to exclusively try
E offences relating to the 2G Scam and other related
  offences.

       On 11-4-2011, this Court inter alia ordered that any
  objection about appointment of Special Public
F Prosecutor or his Assistant Advocates or any prayer for
  staying or impeding the progress of the trial can be made
  only before this Court and no other Court shall entertain
  the same and that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day
  basis. However, large number of writ petitions were filed
G before the Delhi High Court praying for stay of the trial
  proceedings on one or the other ground. The CBI filed
  application before this Court for summoning the records
  of the cases pending before the Delhi High Court and
  also prayed for stay of all the proceedings of these cases.
  This Court passed order dated 09-11-2012 staying the
H
         SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                   53


proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court.                A
     The question which arose for consideration in the
present writ petition was whether the two orders passed
by this Court on 11-04-2011 and 09-11-2012 in Civil
Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred        B
on this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the
Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation
of 2G related cases, were liable to be recalled, de hors the.
rights guaranteed to the Petitioners to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the     C
Constitution, if aggrieved by the orders passed by the
Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum case.

    Dismissing all the matters, the Court

      HELD:1.1. The CBI as well as the Enforcement              o
Directorate is yet to complete the investigation of the
cases relating to 2G Scam and the case which is being
tried by the Special Judge is only one among them,
wherein the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is
in progress. This Court, taking into consideration the          E
width and ambit of the investigation which even spreads
overseas and the larger public interest involved, passed
the orders impugned, reserving the right of all, including
the accused persons, to move this Court if their prayer
would amount to staying or impeding the progress of the
trial. In case they have any grievance against the orders
                                                                F
passed by the Special Judge during trial, they are free to
approach this Court so that the progress of the trial would
not be hampered by indulging in cumbersome and time
consuming proceedings in the other Forums, thereby
stultifying the pre-emptory direction given by this Court       G
for day-to-day trial. [Para 21) [68-B-E]

    1.2. Article 136 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India enables this Court to pass such
orders, which are necessary for doing complete justice          H
    54      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A  in any cause or matter pending -before it and, any order
   so made, shall be enforceable throughout the territory of
   India. Parties, in such a case, cannot invoke the
   jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution
   of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to interfere
B with those orders passed by this Court, in exercise of its
   constitutional powers conferred under Article 136 read
   with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Or, else, the
   parties will move Courts inferior to this Court under
   Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India or
c  Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as to defeat the very purpose and
 ' object of the various orders passed by this Court in
   exercise of its powers conferred under Article 136 read
   with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. [Para 22] [68-
   F-H; 69-A]

D PUBLIC INTEREST:

        1.3. Public Interest compelled this Court to take up
  the investigation in 2G related cases in exercise of its
  powers under Article 136 read with Article 142, that too,
E on a request made by the Central Government. When
  larger public interest is involved, it is the responsibility
  of the Constitutional Court to assure judicial legitimacy
  and accountability. Public interest demands timely
  resolution of cases relating to 2G Scam. Prolonged
F litigation undermines the public confidence and weakens
  the democracy and rule of law. [Paras 23, 24] [69-B-C, H;
  70-A]
       3.2. The Parliament, in its wisdom, has also noticed
  the necessity of early disposal of cases relating to bribery
G and corruption. Section 4(4) of the Prevention of
  Corruption Act, 1988 reflects the will of the Parliament that
  a Special Judge shall hold the trial of an offence on day-
  to-day basis, notwithstanding anything contained in the
  Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 19(3}(c} also states
H that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
         SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                55


Criminal Procedure, no Court shall stay the proceedings A
under the Prevention of Corruption Act on any other
ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of the
revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in
any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. Statutory
provisions highlight the imperative need to eradicate the B
evils of bribery and corruption. Larger public interest
should have precedence over the prayers of the
petitioners, especially when this Court has safeguarded
their rights and given freedom to them to move this Court,
either under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution c
of India. Article 139A also reflects the larger public
interest, which enables this Court to transfer certain
cases which involve substantial questions of law, from
one High Court to another or to this Court, in such an
event, it cannot be contended that the parties are 0
deprived of their rights to adjudicate their grievances
under Articles 226, 227 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., before the
High Court. [Para 25] [70-B-F]
COURT MONITORED INVESTIGATION
                                                             E
     1.4. Monitoring of criminal investigation is ,the
function of investigating agency and not that of the Court
- either of the superior Court or of the trial Court.
However, proper and uninfluenced investigation is
necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty F
if investigation is derailed due to ext91"nal pressure and
guilty gets away from the clutches of law. This Court has
taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is
submitted in the proper Court, the process of Court
monitoring investigation comes to an'end and it is for that G
Court to take cognizance of the offence and deal with the
matter. But, so far as the present/ case is concerned,
charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the
various 2G related cases. This Court, while passing the
impugned order, only directed speedy, trial and, that too,   H
    56       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A on a day-to-day basis which cannot be termed as
  interference with the trial proceedings. Order dated
  11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by
  ordering that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.
  Large backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive
B to the litigants to misuse Court's system by indulging in
  unnecessary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying
  the entire trial process. Criminal justice system's
  procedure guarantees and elaborateness sometimes
  give, create openings for abusive, dilatory tactics and
c confer unfair advantage on better heeled litigants to cause
  delay to their advantage. Longer the trial, witnesses will
  be unavailable, memories will fade and evidence will be
  stale. Taking into consideration all those aspects, this
  Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that the trial
  of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger public
0
  interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including
  the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent,
  until proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the
  trial. Early disposal of the trial is also to their advantage,
  so that their innocence could be proved, rather than
E remain enmeshed in criminal trial for years and unable to
  get on with their lives and business. [Paras 26, 27 and 28] ·
  [10-G; 71-8-C, E-F-H; 72-A-D]

        1.5. The purpose and object of passing the impugned
F orders was for a larger public interest and for speedy trial,
  that too on day-to-day basis which has been reflected not
  only in the various provisions ofthe PC Act, 1988 but also
  falls within the realm ofjudicial accountability. Also, there
  is no reason to lay down any guidelines as prayed for by
G the petitioners in a Court monitored investigation. In a
  Court monitored investigation, the Court is not expected
  to interfere with the trial proceedings. The conduct of the
  trial is the business of the trial judge and not the court
  monitoring the investigation. A superior court exercising
H the appellate power or constitutional power, if gives a
         SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                    57


direction to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or A
complete the trial in a specific time by giving direction is
not interfering with the trial proceedings but only
facilitating the speedy trial, which is a facet of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. [Paras 29, 30] [72-F-H; 73-A-B]
                                                                 B
     A.R. Antu/ay vs. R.S. Nayak and Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602:
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1; Rajiv Ranjan Singh "La/an" VI and
Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 356; Brij
Narain Singh vs. Adya Prasad (2008) 11 SCC 558: 2008 (2)
SCR 1114 and Anku/ Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India
and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 354: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 212 - held C
inapplicable.

     Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (VIII) and Anr. vs. Union of
India and Ors. (2006) 6 sec 613: 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742;
Vineet Narain and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. (1996) 2 D
SCC 199: 1996 (1) SCR 1053; L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union
of India and Ors. (1997) 3 sec 261: 1997 (2) SCR 1186;
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
(2010) 8 SCC 600 and Jakia Nasim Ahesan and Anr. vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 302: 2011 (11) SCR E
365 - cited.

                      Case Law Reference.:
  2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742       Cited              Para 16
                                                                F
  1996 (1) SCR 1053             Cited              Para 16
  1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 1         held inapplicable Para 17
  1997 (2) SCR 1186             Cited              Para 17
  c201 o) 8 sec 600             Cited              Para 17      G
  2011 (11) SCR 365             Cited              Para 17
  1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 212       held inapplicable Para 18

                                                                H
    58        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A      (2006) 1 sec 356               held inapplicable Para 30
       2008 (2) SCR 1114              held inapplicable Para 30
        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    548 of 2012.
B
         Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
                                  WITH
    W.P.(C) Nos. 550, 551 & 552 of 2012, W.P. (C) No. 17 of
C   2013 & I.A. Nos. 59, 61, 63 & 68 in C.A. No. 10660 of 201 O.

      Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG, Ram Jethmalani, K.K.
  Venugopal, U.U. Lalit, Harish N. Salve, F.S. Nariman, Amit
  Desai, Mukul Rohatgi, Rudreshwar Singh, Kumar Ranjan,
  Karan Kalia, P. Diesh, Gopal Jha, Kaushik Poddar, Vijay
D Aggarwal, Mudit Jain, Entesham Hashmi, Shelly B. Maheshwari,
  Prashant     Bhushan,       Pranav    Sachdeva,      Gopal
  Sankaranarayanan, Sonia Mathur, Harsh Prabhakar, Anirudh
  Tanwar, Rohit Bhatt, Vikramaditya, Rajiv Nanda, R.V. Dass,
  Sidharth Agarwal, Mahesh Agarwal, Neeha Nagpal for the
E appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in these cases,
  called upon to examine the question whether two orders
F passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012 in Civil
  Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in exercise of powers conferred on
  this Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of
  India, while monitoring the investigation of 2G related cases,
  are liable to be recalled, de hors the rights guaranteed to the
G Petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles
  32 and 136 of the Constitution of India, if aggrieved by the
  orders passed by the Special Court dealing with 2G Spectrum
  case.
       2. Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the above-
H   mentioned orders have been passed, was filed under Article
         SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                      59
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
136 of the Constitution of India by special leave, praying for a A
Court monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) or by a SpeCial Investigating Team into what
was described as the 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a
direction to investigate the role played by A. Raja, the then
Union Minister for Department of Telecommunications (DoT), B
senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and others.
Before this Court, it was pointed out that the CBI had lodged a
first information report on 21.10.2009 alleging that during the
years 2000-2008 certain officials of the DoT entered into a
criminal conspiracy with certain private companies and c
misused their official position in the grant of Unified Access
Licenses causing wrongful loss to the nation, which was
estimated to be more than Rs.22,000 crores. CBI, following that,
registered a case No.RC-DAl-2009-A-0045(2G Spectrum
Case) on 21.10.2009 under Section 120B IPC, 13(1)(d) of the D
PC Act against a former Cabinet Minister and others.

     3. Before this Court parties produced large number of
documents, including the Performance Audit Report (Draft and
Final) prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India
(CAG) on the issue of licence and allocation of 2G Spectrum E
by DoT, Ministry of Communications and Information and
Technology for the period from 2003-2004 to 2009-2010.
Report of the CAG, was submitted to the President of India,
as per Article 151 of the Constitution of India. The Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) also conducted an inquiry under F
Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
and noticed grave irregularities in the grant of licences. The
eve on 12.10.2009 had forwarded the enquiry report to the
Director, CBI to investigate into the matter to establish the
criminal conspir~cy in the allocation of 2G Spectrum under G
UASL policy of OoT and to bring to book all wrongdoers.

     4. After taking into consideration of all those factors,
including the report of the CVC as well as the findings recorded

                                                                   H
    60          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   by the CAG, this Court agreed for a Court monitored
    investigation and held as follows:

         "We are, prima facie, satisfied that the allegations
         contained in the writ petition and the affidavits filed before
         this Court, which are supported not only by the documents
B
         produced by them, but also the report of the Central
         Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the
         Director, CBI on 12.10.2009 and the findings recorded by
         the CAG in the Performance Audit Report, need a
         thorough and impartial investigation. However, at this
c        stage, we do not consider it necessary to appoint a
         Special Team to investigate what the appellants have
         described as 2G Spectrum Scam because the
         Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid down
         in Vineet Narain's case and others passed in other cases,
D        agreed for a Court monitored investigation."

        5. This Court, with a view to ensure a comprehensive and
    co-ordinated investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement
    Directorate, gave the following directions vide its order dated
E   16.12.2010:

          (i}     The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into
                 various issues high-lighted in the report of the
                 Central Vigilance Commission, which was
                 forwarded to the director, CBI vide letter dated
F                12.10.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have
                 prima facie found serious irregularities in the grant
                 of licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are
                 said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of the
                 terms and conditions of licences and huge loss to
G                the public exchequer running into several thousand
                 crores. The CBI should also probe how licences
                 were granted to large number of ineligible
                 applicants and who was responsible for the same
                 and why the TRAI and the DoT did not take action
H                against those licensees who sold their stake/
        SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                    61
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
         equities for many thousand crores and also against A
         those who failed to fulfill rollout obligations and
         comply with other conditions of licence.

(ii)      The CBI shall conduct the investigation without
         being influenced by any functionary, agency or B
         instrumentality of the State and irrespective of the
         position, rank or status of the person to be
         investigated/probed.

(iii)     The CBI shall, if it has already not registered first
         information report· in the context of the alleged c
         irregularities committed in the grant of licences from
         2001 to 2006-2007, now register a case and
         conduct thorough investigation with particular
         emphasis on the loss caused to the public
         exchequer and corresponding gain to the licensees/ D
         service providers and also on the issue of allowing
         use of dual/alternate technology by some service
         providers even before the decision was made public
         vide press release dated 19.10.2007.
                                                                E
(iv)       The CBI shall also make investigation into the
         allegation of grant of huge loans by the public sector
         and other banks to some of the companies which
         have succeeded in obtaining licences in 2008 and
         find out whether the officers of the DoT were
         signatories to the loan agreement executed by the
                                                                F
         private companies and if so, why and with whose
         permission they did so.

(v)        The Directorate of Enforcement/ concerned
         agencies of the Income Tax Department shall G
         continue their investigation without any hindrance or
         interference by any ~me.

(vi)      Both the agencies, i.e. the CBI and the Directorate
         of Enforcement shall share information with each       H
    62        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A                 other and ensure that the investigation is not
                  hampered in any manner whatsoever.

          (vii)    The Director General, Income Tax (Investigation)
                  shall, after completion of analysis of the transcripts
                  of the recording made pursuant to the approval
B
                  accorded by the Home Secretary, Government of
                  India, hand over the same to CBI to facilitate further
                  investigation into the FIR already registered or
                  which may be registered hereinafter."

C       6. CBI and the Enforcement Directorate then used to
    apprise this Court of the various stages of investigation and this
    Court, on 10.02.2011, passed an order stating that since this
    Court is monitoring the investigation of 2G Spectrum Scam no
    court shall pass any order which may, in any manner, impede
D   the investigation being carried out by the CBI and the
    Directorate of Enforcement.

          7. Learned Attorney General of India, it was pointed out,
    had written to the Law Minister on the issue of creation of
E   separate Special Court for dealing with the cases relating to
    2G Scam and, for the said purpose, the Law Minister, in turn,
    had written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court seeking
    nomination of a Special Court for the said purpose. Learned
    Attorney General submitted before this Court on 16.03.2011 that
    the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi had conveyed
F   its decision to nominate Shri O.P. Saini, an officer of the Delhi
    Higher Judicial Service, as the Special Judge to take up the
    trial of cases relating to what has been described as 2G Scam.
    The Court was also informed that two separate notifications
    would be issued by the Central Government in terms of Section
G   3(1) the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the Prevention of
    Money Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of the Special
    Court to exclusively try the offences relating to 2G Scam and
    other related offences. Following that, two notifications dated
    28.03.2011 were published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary .
H   on Monday, the 28th March, 2011:
         SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                     63
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
     8. The CBI submitted before this Court on 01.04.2011 that A
a notification had been issued under Section 6 of the Delhi
Police Establishment Act by the State Government for
entrusting the case relating to death of Sadiq Batcha to the CBI
and the CBI had indicated that it had no objection to take up
the investigation. The CBI also submitted before this Court that B
a Special Public Prosecutor had to be appointed to lead and
supervise the prosecution of the case relating to the 2G Scam
for which the CBI had suggested the name of Shri U.U. Lalit,
senior advocate of this Court.

    9. The CBI, after completion of the investigation in the main C
case, noticed the commission of various other offences during
2007-09 punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of
IPC against the accused persons, namely, Shri A. Raja and
others and the following substantive offences were state<;! to
have been made out against the following accused persons:         D

    "(a) Sh. A. Raja, then MOC&IT - the offence punishable ul
    s 420, 468, 471 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1}(d) PC Act, 1988.

    (b) Sh. Siddartha Behura, then Secretary, Department of      E
    Telecom- the offence punishable u/w 420 IPC & 13(2) rlw
    13(1}(d} PC Act, 1988.

    (c) Sh. R.K. Chandolia, then PS to MOC&IT- the offence
    punishable u/s 420 IPC & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) PC Act.
                                                                 F
    (d) Sh. Shahid Usman Balwa, Director, Mis Swan Telecom
    Pvt. Ltd.; Sh. Vinod Goenka, Director, Mis Swan Telecom
    Pvt. Ltd. and Mis Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (now M/s Etisalat
    DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd) through its Director - offences
    punishable uls 42014681471 IPC.                            G

    (e) Sh. Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director, Mis Unitech
    Ltd. and M/s Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd.
    through its Director -offences punishable uls 420 IPC.

    (f) Sh. Gautam Doshi, Group Managing Director, Reliance H
        64       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 11 S.C.R.


    A        ADA Group, Sh. Hari Nair, Senior Vice President of
             Reliance ADA Group & Sh. Surendra Pipara, Senior Vice
             President of Reliance ADA Group & Mis Reliance
             Telecom Ltd. through its Director - offences punishable
             under section 109 r/w 420 IPC."
    B
             10. The CBI, on the basis of the investigation conducted,
        submitted a charge-sheet against the above-mentioned
        persons/companies before a Special Judge on 02.04.2011 and
        Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences on
        the same day.
    c
              11. This Court undertook the monitoring of the investigation
        in view of the prayers made by the appellants and the request
        made by the prosecution agency and the Government of India,
        having regard to the larger public interest involved and· the
    D   necessity of a proper investigation and also with the ultimate
        object of unearthing the crime.

             12. Counsel appearing for the CBI suggested to this Court,
        on 11.4.2011, the name of Shr.i U.U. Lalit, senior advocate, for
    E   the conduct of the criminal prosecution in the case on behalf
        of the CBI as well as the Directorate of Enforcement and the
        Court on that date inter alia ordered as follows:
I            "We also make it clear that any objection about
             appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant
    F        advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the
             progress of the Trial can be made only before this Court
             and no other Court shall entertain the same. The trial must
             proceed on a day-to-day basis.

             All these directions are given by this Court in exercise of
    G
             its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the
             Constitution and in the interest of holding a fair prosecution
             of the case."

            13. We found, in spite of the order passed by this Court
    H   on 11.04.2011 that no Court should entertain any prayer for ·
          SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                      65
             [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
staying or impeding the progress of the trial, large number of      A
writ petitions were seen filed before the Delhi High Court
praying for stay of the trial proceedings on one or the other
ground. The CBI noticing that entertaining of those cases would
violate the order passed by this Court on 11.04.2011, filed an
application before this Court for summoning the records of Writ     B
Petition (Criminal) No.1587 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.1588 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.913 of 2012, Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.111 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.207 of2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1478of2012, Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.1751 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.   c
1752 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1754 of 2012, Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.206 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
159 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 208 of 2012, Criminal
M.C. No. 4197 of 2011, Criminal M.C. No.67 of 2012, Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.129 of 2012, Writ Petition (Criminal)        D
No.656 of 2012, Criminal M.C. No.4199 of 2011, Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.467 of 2012 and Criminal M.C. No.1060 of 2012
pending before the Delhi High Court and also prayed for stay
of all the proceedings of these cases.

    14. This Court felt entertaining those cases by the Delhi       E
High Court, at this stage, would violate the order passed by this
Court on 11.4.2011, passed an order on 09.11.2012 staying
those proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court.

    15. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel,                F
appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.548 of 2012,
prayed for recalling orders dated 11.04.2011 and 09.11.2012
on the ground that those orders would violate the rights
guaranteed to the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for moving    G
the High Court. Learned senior counsel also submitted that
remedy, if at all, available under Article 32 is limited to
safeguarding the rights guaranteed under Part Ill of the
Constitution while the remedies available under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution have a wider scope, which cannot        H
    66        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   be taken away by the impugned orders passed by this Court
    while monitoring the 2G Scam.

        16. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the
  impugned orders have the effect of taking away the power of
  the Court in granting reasonable adjournments under Section
8
  309 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted neither sub-section (4) of
  Section 4 nor Section 19(3) of the PC Act can take away that
  right of the petitioners, but has been effectively curtailed by the
  impugned orders passed by this Court. Learned senior counsel
C also submitted that this Court exercising powers under Articles
  136 and 142 of the Constitution, has the power to only monitor
  the investigation and once the investigation is over and charge-
  sheet has been filed, this Court should leave the matter to the
  trial court safeguarding the rights of parties in questioning the
  correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the trial Court
D in appropriate Forums. Reference was made to the decision
  of this Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (VIII) and Another
  v. Union of India and others (2006) 6 sec 613 and Vineet
  Narain and Others v. Union of India and Another (1996) 2
  sec 199.
E
        17. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel, submitted
  that right to fair trial is a right guaranteed to the parties under
  Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned
  order has the effect of negating those rights by shutting out all
F remedies available to the parties under Articles 226 and 227
  of the Constitution of India to move the High Court. Learned
  senior counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court
  in AR. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and another (1988) 2 SCC 602
  and submitted that in appropriate cases this Court has got the
G power to recall its earlier order in the interest of justice, if it is
  satisfied that its directions will result in the deprivation of
  fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens or any other legal
  rights. Placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in L.
  Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others (1997) 3 SCC
  261 and Shalini Shyam Sheffy and another v. Rajendra
H
          SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                       67
             [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Shankar Patil (2010) 8 sec 600, learned senior counsel               A
submitted that the rights conferred under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India are the basic structure of the
Constitution and the same cannot be taken away by exercising
powers under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
                                                                  B
      18. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, submitted
that the power of the Court to monitor the criminal investigation
should stop once the charge-sheet has been filed, leaving the
trial court to proceed with trial in accordance with the law. In
support of his contention reliance was placed on the Judgment C
of this Court in Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another v. State of
Gujarat and others (2011) 12 SCC 302 and the Judgment in
Ankul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and others (1996)
6 sec 354.
      19. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing      D
for the CBI, submitted that there are no justifiable reasons for
recalling the impugned orders since those orders had been
passed in the larger public interest and that too based on the
request made by the Government of India virtually inviting this
Court's intervention for monitoring the investigation relating to    E
2G Scam. Learned senior counsel referred to the CAG report
as well as the report sent by the eve to the 'CBI and submitted
that those reports would highlight the magnitude of loss suffered
by the public exchequer, which has been revealed by the
investigation conducted by the CBI. Learned senior counsel also      F
submitted that this Court has undertaken monitoring of the
investigation due to the involvement of highly placed ·officers of
DoT and the then Union Minister for Telecommunications,
Members of Parliamerit, bureaucrats and businessmen.

     20. Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court,      G
while issuing the orders dated 11.04.2011 or 09.11.2012, has
neither interfered with the proceedings pending before the
Special Court, nor attempted to supervise or investigate the trial
proceedings. On the other hand, this Court only ensured that
the progress of the trial be not impeded and the trial should go     H
    68       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A   on day-to-day basis. Learned senior counsel also submitted that
    this Court has reserved its powers to entertain any challenge
    against the orders passed by the Special Judge under Articles
    136, 32 as well as Article 142 of the Constitution and hence,
    no prejudice is caused to the petitioners.
8
       21. We may, at the very outset, point out that CBI as well
  as the Enforcement Directorate is yet to complete the
  investigation of the cases relating to 2G Scam and the case
  which is being tried by the Special Judge is only one among
  them, wherein the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is
C in progress. This Court,. taking into consideration the width and
  ambit of the investigation which even spreads overseas and
  the larger public interest involved, passed the orders impugned,
  reserving the right of all, including the accused persons, to
  move this Court if their prayer would amount to staying or
D impeding the progress of the trial. In case they have any
  grievance against the orders passed by the Special Judge
  during trial, they are free to approach this Court so that the
  progress of the trial would not be hampered by indulging in
  cumbersome and time consuming proceedings in the other
E Forums, thereby stultifying the preemptory direction given by
  this Court for day-to-day trial.

        22. Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of
  India enables this Court to pass such orders, which are
F necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter
  pending before it and, any order so made, shall be enforceable
  throughout the territory of India. Parties, in such a case, cannot
  invoke the jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the
  Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to
  interfere with those orders passed by this Court, in exercise of
G its constitutional powers conferred under Article 136 read with
  Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Or, else, the parties will
  move Courts inferior to this Court under Article 226 or Article
  227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 Cr.P.C., so as
  to defeat the very purpose and object of the various orders
H
           SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                       69
              [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
 passed by this Court in exercise of its powers conferred under       A
 Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

 PUBLIC INTEREST:

       23. Public Interest compelled this Court to take up the
 investigation in 2G related cases in exercise of its powers under    8
 Article 136 read with Article 142, that too, on a request made
 by the Central Government. CAG is stated to be the most
 important Officer under the Constitution of India and his duty,
 being the guardian of the public Purse, is to see that not a
 farthing of it is spent without the authority of the Parliament.     C
 Article 149 of the Constitution of India empowers the CAG to
 perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the
 accounts of the Union and the State and Audit plays an
 important role in the scheme of Parliamentary Financial Control
 and it is also directed towards discovering waste, extravagance      D
 and disallow any expenditure violating the Constitution, or any
 Law. CAG, in its report submitted to the President of India under
 Article 151 of the Constitution of India, has commented upon
 the manner in which the Unified Access Licences were granted
 and projected that it caused wrongful loss to the Government         E
 to the tune of Rs.1. 76 lac crore. Of course, some acrimony had
 erupted between the Central Government and the CAG's
 estimate of loss, but it is reported to be substantial.eve   also
 conducted an enquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central
 Vigilance Act, 2003 and noticed grave irregularities in the grant    F
 of licences. eve,    on 12.10.2009, had forwarded the enquiry
 report to that effect to the Directorate of CBI.

       24. The nation and the people of this country are seriously
  concerned with the outcome of cases involving larger public
  interest, like one concerning 2G and this Court, as the guardian    G
  of the Constitution, has got the duty and obligation to see that
. the larger public interest and the interest of the nation is
  preserved and protected. When larger public interest is
  involved, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court to
  assure judicial legitimacy and accountability. Public interest      H
    70        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 11 S.C.R.


A demands timely resolution of cases relating to 2G Scam.
  Prolonged litigation undermines the public confidence and
  weakens the democracy and rule of law.

         25. The Parliament, in its wisdom, has also noticed the
    necessity of early disposal of cases relating to bribery and
8
    corruption. Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
    1988 reflects the will of the Parliament that a Special Judge
    shall hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis,
    notwithstanding anything c~ntained iri the Code of Criminal
C   Procedure. Section 19(3)(c) also states that, notwithstanding
    anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court
    shall stay the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption
    Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers
    of the revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in
    any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. Statutory
D   provisions highlight the imperative need to eradicate the evils
    of bribery and corruption. Larger public interest should have
    precedence over the prayers of the petitioners, especially when
    this Court has safeguarded their rights and given freedom to
    them to move this Court, either under Article 136 or Article 32
E   of the Constitution of India. Article 139A also reflects the larger
    public interest, which enables this Court to transfer certain
    cases which involve substantial questions of law, from one High
    Court to another or to this Court, in such an event, it cannot be
    contended that the parties are deprived of their rights to
F   adjudicate their grievances under Articles 226, 227 or Section
    482 Cr.P.C., before the High Court.

    COURT MONITORED INVESTIGATION
      26. Monitoring of criminal investigation is the function of
G investigating agency and not that of the Court - either of the
  superior Court or of the trial Court. But unsolved crimes,
  unsuccessful prosecution, unpunished offenders and wrongful
  convictions bring our criminal justice system in disrepute.
  Crores and crores of tax payers' money is being spent for
H investigating crimes in our country since every such incident is
         SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                        71
            [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the        A
crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of
putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more
independent in our country, is much more. Common people will
be left with the feeling that they can get away with any crime
which tarnish the image not only of the investigating agency but     B
judicial system as well. Once investigation fails, Court will face
with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is
necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if
investigation is derailed due to external pressure and guilty gets
away from the clutches of law.                                       c
     27. More and more demands are now coming before the
Courts for its monitoring of investigation relating to crimes
committed by influential persons and persons who have political
influence, with the apprehension that they could derail the
investigation. Courts in public interest sometime have to take       D
such a course in the larger public interest. That burden this
Court has discharged in various cases like Vineet Narayan's
case and Gujarat Communal Riot's case, etc. This Court has
taken the consistent view that once charge-sheet is submitted
in the proper Court, the process of Court monitoring                 E
investigation comes to an end and it is for that Court to take
cognizance of the offence and deal with the matter. But, so far
as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated
that charge-sheet has been filed only in one among the various
2G related cases. This Court, while passing the impugned             F
order, only directed speedy trial and, that too, on a day-to-day
basis which cannot be termed as interference with the trial
proceedings.

     28. We also, therefore, find no basis in the contention of
the petitioners that the orders dated 11.4.2011 and 9.11.2012        G
have the effect of monitoring the trial proceedings. No Court,
other than the Court seized with the trial, has the power to
monitor the proceedings pending before it. Order dated
11.4.2011 only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering
                                                                     H
    72       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013) 11 S.C.R.

A that the trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. Large
  backlog of cases in the Courts is often an incentive to the
  litigants to misuse of Court's system by indulging in
  unnece'ssary and fraudulent litigation, thereby delaying the entire
  trial process. Criminal justice system's procedure guarantees
B and elaborateness sometimes give, create openings for
  abusive, dilatory tactics and confer unfair advantage on better
  heeled litigants to cause delay to their advantage. Longer the
  trial, witnesses will be unavailable, memories will fade and
  evidence will be stale. Taking into consideration all those
C aspects, this Court felt that it is in the larger public interest that
  the trial of 2G Scam be not hampered. Further, when larger
  public interest is involved, it is the bounden duty of all, including
  the accused persons, who are presumed to be innocent, until
  proven guilty, to co-operate with the progress of the trial. Early
  disposal of the trial is also to their advantage, so that their
0
  innocence could be proved, rather than remain enmeshed in
  criminal trial for years and unable to get on with their lives and
  business.

          29. We fail to see how the principle laid down by this Court
E   in AR. Antulay's case (supra) would apply to the facts of these
    cases. We have found no error in the orders passed by this
    Court on 11.04.2011 or on 09.04.2012. Therefore, th~ question
    of rectifying any error does not arise. On the other h~rltil, as we
    have already indicated, the purpose and object of1 passing
F   those orders was for a larger public interest and for speedy trial,
    that too on day-to-day basis which has been reflected not only
    in the various provisions of the PC Act, 1988 but also falls within
    the realm of judicial accountability.

         30. We also find no reason to lay down any guidelines as
G prayed for by the petitioners in a Court monitored investigation.
  In a Court monitored investigation, as already pointed out the
  Court is not expected to interfere with the trial proceedings. The
  conduct of the trial is the business of the trial judge and not the
  court monitoring the investigation. A superior court exercising
H
           SHAHID BALWA v. UNION OF INDIA                         73
              [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the appellate power or constitutional power, if gives a direction       A
to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis or complete the trial in
a specific time by giving direction is not interfering with the trial
proceedings but only facilitating the speedy trial, which is a
facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That being the
factual situation in these cases, the principle laid down by this       B
Court in Rajiv Ranjan Singh "La/an" VI and another v. Union
of India and others (2006) 1 SCC 356, Brij Narain Singh v.
Adya Prasad (2008) 11 SCC 558 and Ankul Chandra
Pradhan (supra), are not applicable.

     31. We, therefore, find no good reason either to frame
                                                                        c
guidelines to be followed by a constitutional court in relation to
monitoring of criminal investigation or any legal infirmity in the
orders passed by this Court on 11.04.2011 or 09.04.2012. Writ
Petitions lack merits and they are accordingly dismissed, so
also IA Nos.59, 61, 63 and 68 in Civil Appeal No.10660 of               D
2010.

B.B.B.                                         Matters dismissed.