Holding

The Court held that the CBI cannot refuse to investigate transferred cases on the ground of manpower shortage and that the Central Government must promptly revise the CBI’s cadre strength and fill its vacancies, with the State of West Bengal providing deputation personnel as directed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) request to limit its investigation of numerous chit‑fund scam cases on the ground of alleged manpower shortage. The Court noted that the CBI had already taken over investigations of major scams, including the Saradha case, and that the right to a fair, speedy investigation is part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21. It held that a claim of insufficient staff cannot justify refusing to investigate cases transferred by the Court, and that the State has a duty to ensure the CBI is adequately staffed. Consequently, the Court directed the Central Government to undertake a comprehensive revision of the CBI’s cadre strength under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and to fill all existing vacancies promptly. It also ordered the Government of West Bengal to provide a panel of police officers for deputation to the CBI. The interlocutory application filed by the CBI was disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the CBI can invoke alleged manpower shortage to limit its investigation of cases transferred to it by the Court.
Whether the Court can direct the Central Government to revise the cadre strength of the CBI and fill existing vacancies.
Whether the right to speedy investigation under Article 21 imposes a duty on the State to provide adequate resources to investigative agencies.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(8), s. 309
Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946

Subjects

CBIManpower shortageChit fund scamRight to speedy investigationArticle 21Cadre strengthDelhi Special Police Establishment ActCriminal Procedure CodePublic interest litigationTransfer of casesJudicial directions

Judgment

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 660

A SUBRATA CHATIORAJ
v.
UNION OF INDIA &ORS.
(I.A. No. 16 of 2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2013)
B OCTOBER 16, 2015
[T. S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
Investigation - Investigation by CBI - Chit fund scams
in West Bengal and other States - Issuance of direction to
C transfer cases registered in different police stations to CBI
for fair and credible investigation by this Court·- During
pendency of investigation by CBI, writ petition in public
interest by Union of India seeking transfer of large number
of other similar cases to CBI - Disposal of writ petition by
0
the High Court seeking direction to Central Government
to issue notification transferring all chit fund cases
registered in State of Assam to CBI to investigate the said
cases - Direction a/so issued for investigation uls. 173
E Cr.PC. where charge-sheets had already been filed -
Subsequently, IA by CBI seeking modification of the said
order that CBI may be permitted to undertake the
investigation for limited F/Rs and others may be continued
by local police of the State since it could not handle the
F large number of cases with the existing manpower and
other infrastructure at its disposal - Held: Citizens are
entitled to not only expect but demand that investigations
ought to be fair and effective as much as they ought to be
quick and efficient- It cannot be said that the investigating
G agencies hands are full of or that it does not have the
manpower to handle cases, no matter circumstances justify
or demand investigation by any agency from outside a
given State - CBI as a centrally control investigating
agency cannot afford to IQse the advantage of it being seen
H by the citizens and the courts as a credible agency - It
660
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 661

can ill-afford to do so on account of shortage of manpower A
or any other constraint - Thus, the Central Government
directed to take steps for comprehensive revision of the
cadre strength of CBI and take immediate steps for filling
up the vacancies that are already sanctioned -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 21 - Scams. B
Subrata Chattoraj \/. Union of India & Ors. (2014)
8 SCC 768:2001 (6) SCR 783; Nimeon Sharma
and Ors. \/. Home Secretary, Government Of
Meghalaya (1980) 1SCC700: 1979 (3) SCR785; C
Abdul Rehman Antulay And Ors. \/. R.S. Nayak
andAnr. (1992) 1SCC225:1991 (3) Suppl. SCR
325; Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary
1979 AIR 1369: 1979 (3) SCR 532; Kartar Singh
\/. State Of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 ( 2) D
SCR 375; P Ramachandra Rao V. State Of
Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2001 (6) SCR 783 Referred to. Para 2 E
1979 (3) SCR785 Referred to. Para 18
1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 Referred to. Para 19
1979 (3) SCR 532 Referred to. Para 20
1994 (2) SCR 375 Referred to. Para 21 F
(2002) 4 sec 578 Referred to. Para 22

CIVILORIGINALJURIDICTION: I.A No.16of2013.
IN G
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2015.
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
WITH
SLP (C) No. 21834 of 2015. H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1OS.C.R.

A Maninder Singh, ASG, C. U. Singh, Subhasish
Bhowrriick, Anip Sachthey, Bhargava V. Desai, Saumya
Mehrotra, Parijat Sinha, Kabir Sankar Bose, Sunita Sharma,
N. K. Karna ii, Dhruv Sharan, Sushma Suri, S. Sheoram, Avijit
Roy, Vartika Sahary (for Corporate Law Group), Debasis
B Sur, Kailash Chand, Kirti Renu Mishra, Ramesh Babu M.
R., Swati Setia, Ashok K. Srivastava, B. K. Prasad, B. V.
Balaram Das, Senthil Jagadeesan, Legal Options, Liz
Mathew, Sumit Kumar, Samir Ali Khan, Arti Singh, Sajith P.
Snehasish Mukherjee, Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, R.
C Balasubramanian, Pranav Kumar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union oflndia &Ors. (2014)
8 sec 768 this Court directed transfer of cases registered in
different police stations in the State of West Bengal against
Saradha Group of Companies and all such cases registered
E against any other company to the Central Bureau of
Investigation for a fair and credible investigation including
investigation if necessary into the larger conspiracy angle and
the money trail involved in the commission of the offences. By
the same order we had allowed Writ Petition (C) No.413 of
F 2013 and Writ Petition (C) No.324 of 2014 and directed transfer
of cases registered against 44 other chit fund companies for
a similar investigation. The cases involving chit fund deposits
across several States in the eastern part of the country involved
several companies, and a scam that was estimated to be over
G 20,00,00,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand crores) atthe relevant
point of time. As many as 25 lakhs claims were said to have
been lodged by the depositors before the Commissions of
Inquiry set up by the States of Odisha and West Bengal which
too was indicative of the magnitude of the scam. The scam
H had inter-state ramifications apart from international money
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 663
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

laundering dimensions involving several persons in public life. A
It put a question mark on the role of regulators like the SEBI.
and the Reserve Bank of India. Investigation by CBI was in
that backdrop held to be the only effective method of bringing
the truth to light unearthing the ramifications and bringing to
book all those involved in the scam. B

3. The CBI has pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court taken over the investigation of the cases in·question and
made significant headway towards completion of the same.
While the investigation was still in progress Writ Petition No.15 C
of 2013 was filed in public interest by the respondents in which
they prayed for transfer of a larg_e number of other cases to the
CBI on the analogy of the order passed by this Court in Subrata
Chattoraj's case (supra). The High Court of Guwahati has, by
order dated 8th May, 2015, disposed of the said writ petition D
with a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification
transferring all chit fund cases registered in the State of Assam
to the Central Bureau of Investigation with a direction to the
CBI to investigate the said cases. Further investigation in terms
of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where E
charge-sheets have already been filed have also been directed
by the Court. The present appeal filed by th~ CBI assails the
correctness of the said direction. The CBI has at the same
time filed IA No.16 of 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 401 of 2013 F
(Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India & Ors.) in which it has
prayed for modification of our order dated gth May, 2014 to the
following extent:

"i) That the CBI may be permitted to undertake the
investigation for only 70 FIRs in relation to non- G
Saradha Group Companies. In all other cases
pertaining to non-Saradha Group Companies in the
State of West Bengal i.e., other than those 70 FIRs
where CBI has registered 9 cases, these may kindly H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

A be directed to be continued I pursued in accordance
with law by the local police of West Bengal. It may be
directed by this Hon'ble Court that the CBI need not
take up other cases in the State of West Bengal.

B ii) The local State Police of OrisstJ and West Bengal are
continuing to receive complaints regarding Chit Fund
frauds even after 9. 5. 2014, i.e. the date of the judgment
of this Hon'ble Court. In all those cases, there is neither
any direction nor is there any requirement for the CBI
C to take up investigation in all FIRs which are registered
by the State Police authorities in the State of WB after
09. 05. 2014. Therefore, a. clarification/direction
deserves to be issued by the orders of this Hon'ble Court
directing the State of West Bengal and State of Orissa
D to take all necessary steps, in accordance with law,
pertaining to all those Chit Fund fraud FIRs which are
registered in these states after 9. 5. 2014.

iii) That similar direction would deserve to be issued with
E regard to Chit Fund cheating I fraud cases registered
by the Police authorities in the State of Assam as well
as in the State ofTripura after9.5.2014 i.e. this Hon'ble
Court directing the State of Assam and Tripura to take
all necessary steps, in accordance with law, pertaining
F to all those Chit Fund fraud FIRs which are registered
in these states after9.5.2014.

iv) Any other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the light of the facts stated and
G submissions made hereinabove.

It is prayed accordingly."
4. One of the main reasons which the CBI has advanced
H in support of its prayer for modification is that CBI is a small
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 665
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

organisation with limited material and human resources and A
pre-occupied with Coal Scam and 2G Scam cases entrusted
to it. Transfer of a large number of cases relating to Chit fund
scam in the State of Assam, Odisha and West Bengal will,
according to the CBI, bring it under tremendous pressure
which, according to the averments made in the application, B
the CBI cannot handle with the existing manpower and other
infrastructure at its disposal.

5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court
on 271h July, 2015 it was argued by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned C
Additional Solicitor General, that there was severe manpower
deficit in the CBI which was hampering its functioning and the
investigations entrusted to it. Learned ASG placed on r~cord
a statement indicating the requirement of additional manpower
for registration of 265 non-Saradha group cases pertaining to D
the State of West Bengal. In the statement the CBI appeared
to be asking for 10 Superintendents of Police, 15
Investigating Officers, 30 Dy. Superintendents of Police, 85
Investigating Officers in the rank of Inspectors, 40 Sub-
Inspectors, 20 Assistant Sub-Inspectors and 30 Head E
Constables. It was submitted that the State of West Bengal
had been requested to provide the additional manpower
required to undertake and complete the investigations but the
State had expressed its inability to do so. The response of the F
State of West Bengal to the projected manpower requirement
was placed on record by Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior
counsel, in the form of an additional affidavit according to which
as many as 26213 vacancies in different cadres including
Superintendants of Police, Additional Superintendants of G
Police and Deputy Superintendants of Police etc. remain to
be filled up in the said State. It was submitted by Mr. Nageshwar
Rao that since a large number of cases arose from the State
of West Bengal, the State Government was not averse to
providing a reasonable number of officers to the CBI, despite H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A its own constraints. It was suggested that the Director General
of Police, Government of West Bengal and the Director, CBI,
could evolve an acceptable arrangement as regards the
number of officers to be deputed to CBI and the cadre from
which they would be drawn. We had accepted that suggestion
B and directed the two officers to work out an acceptable
arrangement on the subject.

6. When the matter appeared again before us on ·24th
August, 2015, it was pointed out that the Director General of
C Police, State of West Bengal, was not prepared to spare more
than three Deputy Superintendants of Police, two Inspectors,
five Sub-Inspector and ten Constables to ease the manpower
crunch faced by the CBI. This number was, according to Mr.
Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, totally
D inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr.
Kumar argued that as against the total cadre strength of 4544
officers of different ranks ranging from Constables to the
Director, CBI, was somehow managing the show with a strength
of 3790 officers leaving a deficit of 724 officers in different
E cadres. We had in that view directed the Government of West
Bengal to at least double the number of officers it was ready
to lend to the CBI in order to enable the CBI to tide over the
difficulty. The State was asked to prepare a panel of 12 Deputy
F Superintendants of Police, 8 Inspectors, 20 Sub-Inspectors
and 40 Constables from out of which the CBI would select,
according to the prevalent criteria, 6 Deputy Superintendants
of Police, 4 Inspectors, 10 Sub-Inspectors and 20 Constables
for deputation to the CBI. It was also directed that those
G selected by the CBI shall regardless whether they were
consenting for such deputation be taken on deputation
keeping in view the fact that investigation into cases
transferred to the CBI was in national interest and those
selected for serving the CBI were expected to respond to the
H call of duty towards the nation. We had further directed that no
SUBRATA CHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 667
[T.S. THAKUR, J. ]

Court shall entertain any petition on behalf of any of the officers A
sent by the State of West Bengal on deputation to the CBI but
those aggrieved of such deputation shall be free to approach
this Court. Having said that we had formulated seven queries
for the CBI to answer in regard to the current cadre strength,
revision of the said cadre strength in the past and the number B
of cases currently pending with the CBI for investigation as
also the steps taken and the impediments, if any, in filling up
the unfilled vacancies. The CBI was directed to respond to the
said queries and to give a clear picture as to the nature of the
problems and the possible solution to the same. The CBI has, C
pursuant to the said direction filed an additional affidavit in
which it has tabulated the current cadre strength in different
ranks as under:
Desigmtion of Saiction Deputation PIOll'Otiai Direct LDCE(Umited
post ed quota Qucta Qoota Dllpartmeiital D
Strengh Competitive
Examlnatiai)

Directer 1 0 0 0 0

Spl./.Addl. Director 4 0 0 0 0
(SD'AD) E
"".Joint Director (JD) 18 14 4 0 0
-Depliy lnsp. 39 33 6 0 0
Gereral cl Police
(DIG)
F
Sr.Superirtenclert 10 0 10 0 0
of Police (Sr. SP)

Superintendert of 101 (i3 38 0 0
Police(SP)

.Addi. 91 0 91 0 0 G
Superintendert of
Police ASP

Deplty 265 'lJ 200 0 29
Superintend art of
Police (DSP)
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 10 S.C.R.

A
Inspector. 908 417 491 0 0

Sub Inspector 414 0 83 243 88
(SI)

B Asst. Sub 207 0 145 0 62
Inspector
(ASI)

Head 583 0 408 0 175
Constable
c
Constable 1903 1903 0 0 0

TOTAL 4,544 2462 1485 243 354

D
:/. In answer to query no.2 raised by this Court the
affidavit states that no comprehensive revision of CBI
cadre strength has taken place since the formation of
CBI in the year 1963 no matter the cadre strength has
E been increased over the years in a piecemeal manner
with a view to establishing the presence of CBI in those
areas of the country where there was no CBI office
despite a requirement for the same. The creation of posts
in different cadres has been indicated by the CBI as
F under:
"i. Creation of 336 posts for OB new Branches-DoPT
(Department of Personnel & Training,
Government of India) vide order No.20110412009-
AVD.ll dated 30.08.2010 conveyed approval of the
G competent authority for creation of 336 posts for
08 new CBI Branches. It is respectfully submitted
that creation of these posts was meant for OB new
Branches i.e. Srinagar, Shim/a,
Thiruvananthapuram, Port Blair, Chhattisgarh,
H
SUBRATACHATIORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 669
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

Imphal, Ghaziabad and Pune with the object to A
undertake anti-corruption work in those areas of
country which were not covered earlier.
ii. Creation of 01 post of Joint Director/North-Eastern
Region - Do PT vide order No. 20217312010-AVD. II
dated 09.04.2012 conveyed approval of the B
competent authority for creation of one post of
Joint Director. It is respectfully submitted that this
post was created exclusively for North-Eastern
Region.
c·
iii. Creation of 88 posts for 22 additional Special
Courts - Do PT vide order No. 24516312012-A VD. I I
(Pt.IV) dated 28.05.2013 conveyed approval of the
competent authority for creation of 88 posts (1
Public Prosecutor, 1 Pairvi Officer (Inspector), 1 D
Naib Court (Head Constable) and 1 Stenographer
for each court) for conducting/he/ping prosecution
in 22 add/. Special Courts in different States/UTs
in the country. It is clarified that these posts were
created only for conducting helping .prosecution E
work and not for investigation work."
8. In answer to query no.4 touching the number of
cases under investigation by CBI and number of cases
pending with the CBI at the time of increase in the cadre F
strength mentioned above the CBI has given the following
figures:
Date No. of cases pending
..
30.08;2010 1007 G
31.03.2012 1012
31.05.2013 1037
31.08.2015 1241
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10S.C.R.

A 9. So also the break-up of 724 vacancies in CBI in all
cadres has been set out by the CBI in the affidavit as under:
Rank Vacancies Dep. Quota Prom.
--
Direct LDCE
Quota quota

Director 0 0 0 0 0
B
SD/AD 2 2 0 0 0

JD 3 3 0 0 0
.
DIG 13 10 3 0 0
.

Sr. SP 6 0 6 0 0
SP 34 25 9 0 0

Addi. SP 24 0 24 0 0
.

Dy.SP 44 0 7 0 28
Inspector 114 100 14 0 0
D 0 56
Sub- 247 150 41
Insoector
AS( 33 0 23 0 10

Head 36 0 27 0 9
Constable

E Constable 168 168 0 0 0

TOTAL 724 317 119 150 88

10. As regards the steps taken by CBI for filling up of the
vacancies the affidavit states as under:
F
"That the following steps are being taken by CBI for filling
up the vacancies:-

Rank Steps taken/being taken
G
Joint Director/JD (3 04 IPS officers working as DIGs in CBI
vacancies) have been empanelled to hold IG level
post at Centre on 17.08.15 and their
cases are being processed for induction
as JD in CBI since 17.08.15
H
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 671
[T.S. THAKUR, j_]

A
Deputy lnsp. General of 08 IPS officers presently working
Police /DIG (13 vacancies) as SP in CBI have been
empanelled to hold DIG level post
at Centre on 02.09.15 and their
cases are being processed for
induction as DIG in CBI since B
02.09.15
Sr. Superintendent of A proposal seeking relaxation in
Police/Sr.SP (6 vacancies) the eligibility criteria in respect of
16 SsP of CBI for consideration of
their promotion to the rank of
Sr.SP was sent to DP& T on c
Of12.2014. DoPT allowed
relaxation in respect of 03 SsP on
11.06.2015. However, the said
proposal is pending in view of the
decision given by the Hon'ble Qelhi D
High Court on 22.05.2015 in WP
(C) No.7370/2010 filed by Shri
S.K. Khare.
Superintendent of Police/SP Joining of 01 JPS officer is awaited.
(34 vacancies).
Cadre clearance with respect to E
03 JPS officers has been obtained
on 25.08.15 & 27.08.15.

Proposal to fill up 07 vacancies of
SP has been sent to DoPT on F
10.08.2015 for onward
transmission to UPSC for
convening the meeting of DPC
(Departmental Promotion
Committee)
Addi. Superintendent of • A proposal for relaxation of G
Police/ASP (24 vacancies) eligibility criteria for 26 officrs has .
been sent to DoPT on
30.12.2014.
• Proposal for relaxation of
15 more officers has been sent to
I DoPTon 1009.15. H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

A Deputy Superintendent of • Interview held from 1" Sept.
Police/DSP (44 vacancies) to 3rd Sept., 2015 for filling up of 08
vacancies under deputation quota.
• Approval of modalities for
holding LDCE for filing 28 posts
was obtained on 14.08.15.
B Inspector (114 vacancies) • 71 Sub-Inspectors promoted
as Inspector vide order dated
05.09.2015 after seeking relaxation
from DoPT.
• DO letter from DCB! issued
to DGs of States and CPOs on
04.09.2015 for circulation for
c nominating names of willing/eligible
officials for induction as Inspector in
CBI on deputation basis.
Sub Inspector/SI (247 • Offer of appointment have
vacancies) been issued to 63 candidates for
reporting at CBI Acadeniy on
D 14.09.2015.
• A requisition for 93 dossiers
was sent on 25.11.2014 to SSC for
filling up vacancies.
• 12 Sub-Inspectors selected
under LDCE-2015. Offer of
appointment issued for joining at
E CBI Academy on 14.9.2015.
• 14 Officers promoted on
29.06.2015.
Asst. Sub Inspector/AS! (33 • DPC meeting for promotion
vacancies) of 22 HCs to AS! was held on
22.07.2015.
F • Examination for promotion of
HCs/General Duty cadre(GD) to
ASl/GD conducted on 27.06.2015.
Interview of qualifying candidates
was held on 3rd & 4 111 Sept., 2015.
Result awaited.
Head Constable (36 • Integrity CertificateNigilance
G
vacancies) Clearance & APAR grading in
respect of 53 Constables have
been called for on 31.08.2015 for
consideration of their promotion.
• LDCE of Constable to the
rank of Hd. Const. for the year
H 2015 held on 22.08.2015 in CBI
Academy. Result is awaited.
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 673
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

Constable(168 vacancies) • 42 Constables of Central A
Police Organisations and State
Police have been selected. Their
joining is awaite.Q.
• Approx. 100 nominations
received from various organizations
are under process of selection. B
• Nominations of approx. 125
Constables have been called from
different Police Forces against
existina and anticioated vacancies.
11. Impediments in filling up the unfilled vacancies have
also been enumerated by the CBI in the following words: C

(i) Residency (eligibility) period for promotion - Non-
availabilty of eligible officers for promotion in the rank .
of AS/ to Sr. SP due to non~completion of residency
period required for promotion under Recruitment 0
Rules is an impediment in filling up the vacancies.
CBI has written to DoPT for seeking relaxation in
eligibility criteria.

(ii) Higher Grade Pay in State Police -
E
CBI is facing difficulty in filling vacancies under
deputation quota particularly in two ranks i.e.
Constable and Inspectors from some states viz. Tamil
Nadu, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Assam due to
higher grade pay in the analogous post: As per DoPT F
OM dated 17.6.2010 para 3.3., a person in higher
Grade PaylscakT of pay shall not be appointed on
deputation to a post in lower Grade Pay/scale of pay
if the deputation is from Central Government to G
Central Government and also in cases where the scale
of pay and dearness allowance in the parent cadre
post and ex-cadre post are similar.

(iii) Cadre Clearance/NOC by States!CPOs-Candidates
short-listed by CBI for deputation from State Police H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1OS.C.R.

A forces/CPOs require clearance for that purpose by
respective competent authorities of the States/CPOs.
In many cases, the cadre clearance/NOC from states/
CPOs is not forthcoming."

B 12. Proposals for increase of cadre strength of CBI which
are under consideration of the Government of India have been
enumerated in paras 1O(i) to 1O(iv) of the affidavit as under:

i. Proposal dated 02.09.2011 regarding strengthening
c of CBI by creation of 2063 posts in different ranks in
three phases (Phase-I - 711 posts). This proposal is
currently pending consideration with Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, Government of India.
. .
ii. Proposal dated 15.01.2014 was sent for creation of
D
252 additional posts of Head Constables and
Constables for execution of summonslwaffants arising
out of creation of 70 Additional Special Courts. This
proposal is currently pending consideration with DoPT,
E Government of India.

iii. Proposal dated 31.07.2015 was sent for setting up
new Zone AC-HQ-// by creation of 496 posts in different
ranks for VYAPAM Case in two phases i.e. Phase-1-
322 posts and Phase-// - 174 posts. This proposal is
F
currently pending consideration with the Ministry of
Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of
India.

iv. Proposal dated 12. 8. 2015 was sent for setting-up new
G Zone E0-111 by creation of 410 posts in different ranks
for Chit Fund/Ponzi Scheme Scam cases in two phases .
i.e. Phase-I- 278 posts and Phase-I/- 132 posts. This
proposal is currently pending consideration with the
Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
H
Government of India."
SUBRATA CHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 675
[T.S. THAKUR, J. ]

13. More importantly, the CBl's affidavit candidly concedes A
that a comprehensive revision of cadre strength is long
overdue and such a step is necessary for strengthening the
CBI in meeting the emerging challenges. The affidavit states:

''That a comprehensive revision of cadre strength of CBI B
is long overdue and such a step will definitely
strengthen the organization and help CBI in meeting
the emerging challenges and fulfil the increasing
expectations of the society."
c
14. The absence of a comprehensive review of cadre
strength ever since the organisation came to be established
is somewhat surprising to say the least. The averments made
in the passage extracted above shows as if the CBI is itself
crying for a comprehensive revision of the cadre strength. We D
are at a loss to understand why such a revision has not been
carried out so far and why should it be left to Court to direct a
revision which in its very nature is a Governmental function in
the performance of which there ought to be no deficit.
E
15. The data furnished by the CBI further shows that
creation of vacancies and filling up of such vacancies has
suffered primarily because of a lackadaisical attitude of the
departments concerned towards a matter of significant public
importance directly related to the administration of justice and F
the rule of law. For instance, despite 2 vacancies in the cadre
of Special Directors, no steps appear to have been taken thus
far. So also against 3 vacancies in the cadre of Joint
Directors the appointment process is reported to have been
initiated but only in August, 2015. G

16. Similarly, there are 13 vacancies in the cadre of DIGs
against which only 8 appointments are said to be under
process that too since 2nd September, 2015. Against 6
vacancies in the cadre of Sr. SPs, the proposal for relaxation H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 OS.C.R.

A seems to be languishing since 1•1 December, 2014 except in
three cases where DoPT is said to have responded to the
proposal. The position in regard to remaining vacancies in
the cadre of DSPs and below is no different. There are 34
vacancies in the cadre of SPs against which a proposal for 7
B vacancies appears to have been sent to Do PT as recently as
on 101h August, 2015. Nothing is said about the remaining
vacancies nor any reason given for not filling up of the same.
Against 24 vacancies in the cadre of ASPs also only a
proposal for relaxation of eligibility criteria appears to have
C been sent to DoPTwhich has not so far fructified.

17. The position in regard to lower cadre is even worse.
As for instance there are 114 vacancies in the cadre of
Inspectors, 47 vacancies in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, 33
D vacancies in the cadre of AS ls, 36 vacancies in cadre of Head
Constables and 168 in the cadre of Constables. While it is
true that a comprehensive review of cadre strength is overdue,
there is little or practically no explanation for the failure of the
Government to fill up the vacancies that stand sanctioned and
E are available for being filled up by the Government. The
impression that one gathers from the current state of affairs
and the neglect and apathy of the past is that filling up of
vacancies is a low priority area for the Government, no matter
F the number of cases has gradually increased forcing the CBI
to throw up its hands and plead inability to take over and
complete investigation into cases of considerable importance
because of the manpower crunch. This is not a happy
situation to say the least. Cases transferred to CBI are not run
G of the mill cases involving ordinary crimes or criminals nor is
CBI an ordinary investigating agency. It is a specialised agency
which has on account of its dispassionate and sustained hard
work earned for itself a certain amount of credibility in the
minds of the people of this country. Whenever cases of public
H importance apart from cases of corruption against Central
SUBRATACHADORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 677
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

Government employees and people in high places come to A
occupy the centre stage of public attention, people cry for a
CBI investigation in the hope that the investigation would
. unravel the truth regardless of the influence or clout political or
otherwise of those being investigated. Courts have also
reposed confidence in the fairness of investigation of the CBI B
despite accusations that are at times made that even CBI can
be misused. What is important is that the CBI is today a
premier investigating agency handling a considerably large
number of cases of significant public importance. Saradha Chit
Fund-scam is just one such case apart from many others which C
are currently in the Courts or under investigation. The question
is whether indifference or apathy can be allowed to frustrate
either the cause of justice or become an instrument of
oppression and injustice implidt in an unduly delayed
0
completion of investigation. Our answer is in the negative. We
say so because quick and effective investigation has been
recognised by this Court in a series of judgments delivered
over the past few decades to be a part of right to life
guaranteed under the Constitution. We may, in this regard, refer E
to some of the decisions which have recognised fair, effective
and speedy investigation as one of the facets of the
guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

18. In Nimeon Sharma and Ors. v. Home Secretary, F
Government of Megha/aya (1980) 1 SCC 700, this Court
held that the delay in investigation and trials was a wholesale
breach of human rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and that criminal justice breaks down, at
a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the G
affected parties are languishing in jail. Speaking for the Court
Krishna Iyer, J. said :

"4 ... ... Criminal justice breaks down at a point when
expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A parties are languishing in jail. The Criminal Procedure
Code in Sections 167, 209 and 309 has emphasised
the importance of expeditious disposal of cases
including investigations and trials. It is unfortunate,
indeed pathetic, that there should have been such
B considerable delay in investigations by the police in
utter disregard of the fact that a citizen has been
deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is
accused of an offence. We do not approve of this course
and breach of the rule of Jaw and express our strong
c displeasure at this chaotic state of affairs verging on
wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under
the Constitution especially under Article 21 as
interpreted by this Court."

D 19. In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak
andAnr. (1992) 1SCC225, this court held that fair, just and
reasonable procedure was implicit in Article 21 of the
Constitution and that Article 21 guarantees a right in the
accused to be tried speedily. It is in the interest of all concerned
E that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as
quickly as possible in the circumstances observed this Court.
What is important is that right to speedy trial flowing from Article
21 was held to encompass all stages, namely, the stage of
F investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The
. following passage is, in this regard, apposite:

"86. In view of the above discussion, the following
propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We
must forewarn that these propositions are not
G exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is
it possible to Jay down any hard and fast rules. These
propositions are:

(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article
H 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 679
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the A
accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public
interest or that it serves the social interest also, does
not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in
the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence
of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in B
the circumstances.

(2) Right to speedv trial flowing from Article 21
encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of
investigation. inquirv. trial. appeal, revision and re-trial. C
That is how. this Court has understood this right and
there is no reason to take a restricted view.
xxx xxx xxx"
(emphasis supplied) o
20. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary 1979
AIR 1369, this Court ruled that the State cannot avoid its
constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused
by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is E
under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and
whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the
State. It is also a constitutional obligation of this Court as the
guardian of the fundamental rights of the people and as a
sentinel on the qui vive to enforce the fundamental right of the F
accused to speedy trial by issuing necessary directions to the
State which may include taking of positive action, such as
augmenting and strengthening the investigative machinery,
setting up new courts, building new court houses, providing
more staff and equipment to the court, appointment of G
additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure
speedy trial.

21. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC
569, this Court declared that the concept of speedy trial is H
read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R.

A right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our
·Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual
restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and
continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation,
inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision so that any possible prejudice
B that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from
the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates
into finality, can be averted. The following passage is, in this
regard, relevant: ·

c· "The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as
an essential part of the fundamental right to life and
liberty guaranteed and preserved under our
Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the
actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent
D incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the
stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision
so that any possible prejudice that may result from
impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the
commission of the offence till it consummates into a
E finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted
that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is
properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."

F 22. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka
(2002) 4 sec 578, this Court held that the mental agony,
expense and strain which a person proceeded against in
criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay,
may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused
G to defend himself have persuaded the constitutional court of
the country in holding the right to speedy trial manifestation of
fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21.
Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its
H stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision
and retrial in short everything commencing with and accusation
SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 681
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]

and expiring with the final verdict-the two being respectively A
the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem - of the journey
which an accused must necessarily undergo once faced with
an implication. The constitutional philosophy propounded as
a right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two
and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far B
off peak.

23. It is unnecessary to burden this judgment any further
with reference to the decided cases that declare in unequivocal
terms that right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the C
Constitution of India guarantees the right to speedy justice
which implies not orrly the right to speedy tri~ but right to
speedy investigation in criminal cases as well. Investigation
by ordinary State Investigating Agencies are often quick but
not so very scientific and focussed for a variety of reasons D
including the fact that the investigating branch of the State Police
is either ill-trained in modern and scientific techniques of
investigation or ill-equipped to handle complicated matters that
require professional training and equipment, deeper
understanding of the nuances of law and greater motivation to E
discover the truth. While these are found in a greater measure
among those working for the Central Bureau of Investigation,
the problem that has of late arisen is that of manpower crunch
and the ever increasing number of cases involving large scams F
transferred to CBI for investigation. The demand for CBI
investigation into several other cases of public importance also
appears to be increasing by the day. Courts are often hesitant,
if not reluctant, to transfer cases to CBI knowing fully well that
its hands are full with large number of cases already transferred G
for investigation. But that can be no reason why the agency
should not be fully equipped in terms of men and material both
to take up investigations whenever called upon.to do so either
by the Government or by the Courts. In a democratic country
like ours governed by the rule of law citizens are entitled to not H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 10 S.C.R.

A only expect but demand that investigations ought to be fair
and effective as much as they ought to be quick and efficient.
It is no answer to say that the agencies hands are full of or that
it does not have the manpower to handle cases, no matter
circumstances justify or demand investigation by any agency
B from outside a given State.

24. Suffice it to say that CBI as a centrally control
investigating agency cannot afford to lose the advantage of it
being seen by the citizens and the Courts as a credible agency.
C It can ill-afford to do so on account of shortage of manpower
or any other constraint. It is, therefore, time for the Central
Government to direct a comprehensive revision of the cadre
strength of the Central Bureau of Investigation and take
immediate steps for filling up the vacancies that are already
D sanctioned. In the result we deem it fit to issue the following
directions:

(1) The Central Government shall as expeditiously as
possible but not later than two months from today take
E steps for a comprehensive revision of the cadre
strength of the Central Bureau of Investigation
established under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (DSPE)Act, 1946. The revision of the
cadre strength when ordered shall be completed within
F a period of four months from the date Government
issues the necessary directions.

(2) Pending comprehensive revision of the cadre strength
as per (1) above, the Centr.al Government shall take
G immediate steps at the appropriate level to fill up the
available vacancies within the existing cadre. This
would imply that the Government attends to and
processes on urgent basis all proposals currently
pending at different levels of the hierarchy to which we
H have made a reference in the body of this order.
SUBRATACHATIORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 683
[T.S. THAKUR, J. ]

(3) The Government of West Bengal shall as already A
directed forward a panel of 12 Deputy Superintendants
of Police, 8 Inspectors, 20 Sub-Inspectors and 40
Constables to enable the CBI to select from out of the
said panel, 6 Deputy Superintendants of Police, 4
Inspectors, 10 Sub-Inspectors and 20 Constables for B
deputation to CBI. The needful shall be done within four
weeks if not already done by the Government of West
Bengal in which case the CBI shall expedite the process
of selecting personnel to be taken on deputation to
mitigate its current manpower requirement. C

25. IA No.16 of 2015 is disposed of with the above
directions.

Nidhi Jain I.A disposed of . D