Lourembam Deben Singh vs Union Of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRL.M.P. NO. 125554 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 205 OF 2018

Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors. .… Petitioners versus Union of India & Ors. etc. …. Respondents AND CRL.M.P. NO. 125550 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 206 OF 2018

Raj Kumar Brojen & Ors. ….Petitioners

versus

Union of India & Ors. …Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 205 & 206 OF 2018

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.11.12 16:28:17 IST

1. These writ petitions have been filed by some police personnel of Reason:

Manipur Police under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We have

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 1 of 20 been given to understand that these petitions have the support of a few

hundred officers from the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and

Manipur Police. These petitions are a fall-out of the decision rendered by

us in Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of

India1 and subsequent orders passed therein by way of a continuing

mandamus. The prayer in the writ petitions is for an appropriate writ,

order or direction for quashing certain oral observations said to have been

made by us which, according to the petitioners, violate their rights

guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Pending a decision in the

writ petitions, it is prayed that we should not proceed with the continuing

mandamus in the case.

2. Interlocutory applications have also been moved in these writ

petitions specifically for a direction that we should recuse from hearing

these writ petitions which should be placed for consideration before

another Bench of this Court.

3. Submissions were made before us in the interlocutory applications

for recusal but we find no merit in these applications and therefore

dismiss them.

The background

4. On 8th July, 2016 we delivered judgement in Extra-Judicial

1 (2016) 14 SCC 536

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 2 of 20 Execution Victim Families Association. v. Union of India. We noted the

allegations made in the writ petition in the following words:

“The allegations made in the writ petition concern what are described as fake encounters or extra-judicial executions said to have been carried out by Manipur Police and the Armed Forces of the Union, including the Army. According to the police and security forces, the encounters are genuine and the victims were militants or terrorists or insurgents killed in counter-insurgency or anti-terrorist operations. Whether the allegations are completely or partially true or are entirely rubbish and whether the encounter is genuine or not is yet to be determined, but in any case there is a need to know the truth.

The right to know the truth has gained increasing importance over the years. This right was articulated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Sixty-second Session of the Human Rights Commission. In a study on the right to the truth, it was stated in Para 8 that though the right had its origins in enforced disappearances, it has gradually extended to include extra-judicial executions. This paragraph reads as follows:

“With the emergence of the practice of enforced disappearances in the 1970s, the concept of the right to the truth became the object of increasing attention from international and regional human rights bodies and special procedures mandate-holders. In particular, the ad hoc working group on human rights in Chile, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) developed an important doctrine on this right with regard to the crime of enforced disappearances.

These mechanisms initially based the legal source for this right upon Articles 32 and 33 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12-8-1949. Commentators have taken the same approach. However, although this right was initially referred to solely within the context of enforced disappearances, it has been gradually extended to other serious human rights violations, such as extra- judicial executions and torture. The Human Rights Committee has urged a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to guarantee that the victims of human rights violations know the truth with

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 3 of 20 respect to the acts committed and know who the perpetrators of such acts were.” [ Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Study on the right to the truth. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; 8-2-2006. Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second Session, Item 17 of the provisional agenda.]

It is necessary to know the truth so that the law is tempered with justice. The exercise for knowing the truth mandates ascertaining whether fake encounters or extra-judicial executions have taken place and if so, who are the perpetrators of the human rights violations and how can the next of kin be commiserated with and what further steps ought to be taken, if any.”

5. While concluding the decision, we observed that accurate and

complete information had not been made available in respect of each of

the cases that the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association or

EEVFAM had complained about. Accordingly, we observed and directed

as follows:

“Unfortunately, we have not been given accurate and complete information about each of the 1528 cases that the petitioners have complained about. Therefore, there is a need to obtain and collate this information before any final directions can be given. The learned amicus has told us that there are 15 cases out of 62 in which it has been held by the Justice Hegde Commission or by the judicial inquiries conducted at the instance of the Gauhati High Court that the encounters were faked. On the other hand, NHRC has informed us that there are 31 cases out of 62 in which it has been concluded that the encounters were not genuine and compensation awarded to the next of kin of the victims or the award of compensation is pending.

Therefore, as a first step, we direct:

Of the 62 cases that the petitioners have documented, their representative and the learned amicus will prepare a simple tabular statement indicating whether in each case a judicial

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 4 of 20 enquiry or an inquiry by NHRC or an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 has been held and the result of the inquiry and whether any first information report or complaint or petition has been filed by the next of kin of the deceased. We request NHRC to render assistance to the learned amicus in this regard. We make it clear that since a magisterial enquiry is not a judicial inquiry and, as mentioned above, it is not possible to attach any importance to the magisterial enquiries, the tabular statement will not include magisterial enquiries.

The representative of the petitioners and the learned amicus will revisit the remaining cases (1528 minus 62) and carry out an identical exercise as above. This exercise is required to be conducted for eliminating those cases in which there is no information about the identity of the victim or the place of occurrence or any other relevant detail and then present an accurate and faithful chart of cases in a simple tabular form.”

6. Subsequently, on 14th July, 20172 we took up the matter again, inter

alia, for ascertaining whether the first step that we had directed in our

judgement and order of 8th July, 2016 had been acted upon. While

considering this, we recorded what could be described as the background

of the case in the following words:

“In the present petitions, the allegation was that 1528 persons had been killed in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform of the armed forces of the Union. By our judgment and order dated 8-7-2016 [Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536: (2016) 14 SCC 578 (2)] we respectfully followed the view laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 109]. The Constitution Bench held that an allegation of use of excessive force or retaliatory force by uniformed personnel resulting in the death of any person necessitates a thorough enquiry into the incident. We were of the opinion that even the “Dos and Don'ts” and the “Ten Commandments” of the Chief of Army 2 Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 417

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 5 of 20 Staff believe in this ethos and accept this principle. However, after considering the submissions at law, we found that the documentation was inadequate to immediately order any inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners and therefore directed them to complete the documentation indicating whether the allegations were based on any judicial enquiry or an enquiry conducted by the National Human Rights Commission or an enquiry conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

A tabular statement has since been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and this statement has been accepted by the learned Amicus Curiae and no objection was raised by the Union of India or by the State of Manipur. We therefore proceed on the basis of the tabular statement before us.

The petitioners have been able to gather information with regard to 655 deaths out of 1528 alleged in the writ petitions. The break- up is as follows:

Sl. No. Particulars No. of cases 1. Commissions of Inquiry cases 35 2. Judicial inquiry and High Court cases 37 3. NHRC cases 23 4. Cases with written complaint 170 5. Cases with oral complaint 78 6. Cases with eyewitnesses 134 7. Family claimed cases 178 Total number 655

We have perused the tabular statement given with regard to cases with written complaints, oral complaints and eyewitness accounts as well as family claimed cases but find that apart from a simple allegation being made, no substantive steps appear to have been taken by either lodging a first information report (FIR) or by filing a writ petition in the High Court concerned or making a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The allegations being very general in nature, we do not think it appropriate to pass any direction for the time being in regard to the cases concerning these written complaints, oral complaints, cases with eyewitness accounts and family claimed cases. It is not that every single allegation must necessarily be inquired into. It must be remembered that we are not dealing with individual cases but a systemic or institutional response relating to constitutional criminal law.” (Emphasis supplied by us)

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 6 of 20

7. Thereafter, having considered the case law and submissions made

by the learned Amicus and learned counsel for the parties including the

learned Attorney General, we held as follows:

“Having considered the issues in their entirety, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the Central Bureau of Investigation (or CBI) is required to look into these fake encounters or use of excessive or retaliatory force. Accordingly, the Director of CBI is directed to nominate a group of five officers to go through the records of the cases mentioned in the three tables given above, lodge necessary FIRs and to complete the investigations into the same by 31-12-2017 and prepare charge-sheets, wherever necessary. The entire groundwork has already been done either by the Commissions of Inquiry or by a Judicial Inquiry or by the Gauhati or Manipur High Court or by NHRC. We leave it to the Special Investigation Team to utilise the material already gathered, in accordance with law. We expect the State of Manipur to extend full cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigation Team. We also expect the Union of India to render full assistance to the Special Investigation Team to complete the investigation at the earliest without any unnecessary hindrances or obstacles. The Director of CBI will nominate the team and inform us of its composition within two weeks.”

8. Notwithstanding the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this

Court in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India

and the explicit directions given by this Court in Extra-Judicial

Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India [EEVFAM]

the CBI was seemingly following up rather casually and taking its own

time to complete investigations, which were required to be completed by

31st December, 2017 and prepare charge-sheets/final reports, wherever

necessary.

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 7 of 20

9. In our order of 8th January, 2018, we noted that on 23rd November,

2017 the CBI had asked for increasing the strength of the Special

Investigation Team (SIT) and we acceded to that request. We noted that it

appeared to us that the matter was not being taken up by the CBI and the

SIT with the seriousness that it deserves.

10. Thereafter the EEVFAM case was adjourned a couple of times and

on 27th July 2018 we observed that no final report had been filed but

approval was granted in respect of one of them on 24 th July, 2018 and in

respect of another, approval was granted on 26 th July, 2018. Two other

cases were pending for approval. We also observed that the investigations

were taking an unduly long time and that we were not satisfied with the

progress made by the CBI so far. Consequently, we required the Director

of the CBI to let us know the steps that must be taken to ensure that the

investigations are completed early and final reports are filed as

expeditiously as possible. For this purpose, we required the personal

appearance of the Director of the CBI on 30th July, 2018.

11. On 30th July, 2018 the Director of the CBI appeared in Court. He

informed us that two charge-sheets had been filed in which there were 14

accused persons and all of them had been charged with an offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section

120-B of the Indian Penal Code (murder and criminal conspiracy). It was

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 8 of 20 also pointed out that these accused have also been charged with an

offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (causing

disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to

screen offender). He also informed us that some more final

reports/charge-sheets would be filed making a total of seven final

reports/charge-sheets. On 30th July, 2018 we also recorded the submission

of learned counsel for EEVFAM that since the accused persons have been

charged with offences punishable as above, they would normally be

arrested and that where investigations are going on in respect of similar

offences, custodial interrogation would be necessary. We recorded the

submission but left it entirely to the discretion of the Director of the CBI

and the SIT to take a call on whether arrests should be made and whether

custodial interrogation should be carried out. We may mention that we

have not been informed whether and if, as of now, any arrests have been

made and whether and if any custodial interrogation has been carried out.

The present applications

12. It is in the above background that during the continuing mandamus

hearing of the petition filed by EEVFAM on 30th July, 2018 certain oral

observations were made and attributed to us. We need not go into the

correctness of the text or otherwise of the observations made or into the

context in which they were made. The fact of the matter is that the

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 9 of 20 observations said to have been made were widely reported in the press

with varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. The observations led

to the filing of the present two writ petitions. The prayer made in both the

writ petitions is identical. We are not, for the present, concerned with the

maintainability or otherwise of the writ petitions or the grant of final

relief to the petitioners herein. What we are concerned with are the

applications for directions moved in both the writ petitions. The prayer

made in these applications reads as follows:

“direct that the Hon’ble Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon’ble Mr Justice Uday Umesh Lalit hearing of the present writ petition recuse itself and that the writ petition be placed for hearing by another Bench of this Hon’ble Court in accordance with law.”

13. In the applications, the petitioners make a reference to various

newspaper reports and it is submitted that the reported observations

coming from the highest court of the country have created a real

apprehension in the mind of the petitioners about the impartial manner in

which EEVFAM is being heard by this Court. It is further submitted that

hearing that case by another Bench of this Court is essential to subserve

the cause of justice but the prayer should not be construed as casting

aspersions on the Bench. It is further submitted and reiterated that there is

a real apprehension in the mind of the applicants about the manner in

which the Bench is proceeding with the case and it is submitted that the

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 10 of 20 apprehension is not based on any ipse dixit but is based on reports of the

proceedings held on 30th July, 2018 widely reported in the print and

electronic media, which clearly shows that the ‘guilt’ of each and every

one of the applicants/petitioners has been prejudged, though only a police

report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has

been filed. The applicants/petitioners have referred to a few

decisions/case laws in the application and their learned counsel, during

the course of hearing of the application, referred to a few other decisions.

All this was supplemented by written submissions. The principal

decisions relied on were: (i) Manoj Narula v. Union of India3, (ii)

Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat 4, (iii) Captain

Amarinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal 5 and (iv) Supreme Court

Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Recusal Matter). 6

Some decisions of foreign jurisdictions have also been referred to and

relied on.

Submissions

14. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Union of

India supported the prayer made in the applications but did not file any

written submissions. It was orally submitted by the learned Attorney

General that the observations made by this Court had a demoralising 3 (2014) 9 SCC 1 4 (2016) 3 SCC 370 5 (2009) 6 SCC 260 6 (2016) 5 SCC 808

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 11 of 20 effect on the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police

or in any event, it had affected the morale of these forces in their fight

against insurgency.

15. In response to these submissions, it was contended by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of EEVFAM that the allegations made by the

petitioners were reckless and without reading the articles in the

newspapers. It was also submitted that the allegations hurled at the Court

were of a serious nature and ought to have been made after a careful

study and cross-checking the facts from those who were present in court,

but nothing of that sort seems to have been done in the present case. The

learned counsel then placed reliance upon a few decisions of this Court

on the subject of recusal of judges from a case. Apart from giving his

interpretation to the decisions cited by learned counsel for the

applicants/petitioners, it was submitted by learned counsel for EEVFAM

that the attempt of the applicants/petitioners was to put pressure on this

Court to keep its hands off the case.

16. Learned Amicus submitted that the applications filed by the

applicants/petitioners were mala fide and amounted to gross forum

shopping. It was submitted that the applications as well as the writ

petitions be dismissed with exemplary costs. It was submitted that even

though the learned Attorney General supported the prayer for recusal, he

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 12 of 20 clarified that none of the parties were questioning the integrity or fairness

in the investigations carried out by the SIT appointed by the Director of

the CBI on the directions of this Court. She further submitted that the

contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners were based on a selective

reading of the news reports and even assuming what was attributed to this

Court was correct, the observations could not hamper or influence the

trial of the officers who are charge-sheeted. She pointed out that on the

issue of arrest of the accused persons, this Court had explicitly left the

matter to the discretion of the Director of the CBI and the SIT. She

submitted that learned counsel for the petitioners had a duty as an officer

of the court to refrain from making allegations of bias on flimsy grounds

particularly in view of the order passed on 30 th July, 2018. Learned

Amicus referred to certain decisions on the subject of recusal and

submitted that given the peculiar circumstances of the case, monitoring

the investigation by the CBI or the SIT was necessary. Finally, it was

submitted that if the present applications are allowed, then in all cases

where judges of this Court make enquiries which are probing or even

inconvenient to one of the parties in the matter, they could be compelled

to recuse themselves. Learned Amicus drew attention to R.K. Anand v.

Registrar, Delhi High Court.7

7 (2009) 8 SCC 106 Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 13 of 20

17. The effective prayer of the applicants/petitioners is that in view of

the observations said to have been made by this Court on 30 th July, 2018

the investigations should be monitored by another set of judges of this

Court. Our recusal is sought on the ground that as a result of the

observations said to have been made, the applicants/petitioners have a

real apprehension that either the investigations or the trial (if any) would

be tainted to their prejudice.

18. Having heard the learned Attorney General, learned counsel and

learned Amicus and having gone through the written submissions filed,

we are of the view that the apprehension of the applicants/petitioners that

justice will not be done to them is misplaced if not unfounded.

Decision

19. The decisions referred to and relied upon have been fully

considered by us. The discussion on recusal has been exhaustively dealt

with in the cited decisions and there is nothing to add to it. But we find a

crucial distinguishing feature in the case of EEVFAM and the cited cases.

20. It is undeniable that the EEVFAM case pertains to allegations of

serious violations of the human rights of persons described as insurgents.

A large number of such persons were killed in operations carried out by

the Army, the paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police. Whether the

death/killing of such persons was justified or not is a matter of

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 14 of 20 investigation by the SIT. It is nobody’s case that the CBI or the SIT was

not conducting fair investigations into the allegations. On the contrary,

the learned Attorney General submitted that the integrity or fairness of the

investigations were not in question. As mentioned above, no one disputed

this.

21. The distinguishing feature is this: The substantive legal and factual

issues raised in EEVFAM have already been decided by us and what

remains is the continuing mandamus requiring implementation of the

orders of the Court. During the hearing of EEVFAM and even after the

decision was rendered on substantive legal and factual issues, no

allegation of any bias of any sort or any apprehension that justice will not

be done or that anybody would be treated unfairly was made. It is only at

the continuing mandamus stage that the controversy is raised and that too

on the basis of certain observations said to have been made by this Court.

22. What is pending at the continuing mandamus stage is the

implementation of the orders of the court which necessitate a fair

investigation by the CBI and the SIT constituted by the Director of the

CBI. There is no allegation of any nature with respect to the impartiality

and integrity of the SIT. Indeed, the learned Attorney General made it

clear that no one was disputing the capability, expertise and fairness of

the CBI and the investigations carried out by the SIT.

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 15 of 20

23. Even during the hearing of the applications and in the written

submissions, no doubt has been cast on the integrity and fairness of the

investigations. In any event, we make it clear that the law of the land is

quite explicit that no one, and that means no one, can interfere in the

investigations being carried out by the Investigating Officer or an

Investigating Team. This law is well settled and does not need any re-

consideration. The purpose of a continuing mandamus is only to ensure

that there is no interference during the course of investigations from

anybody, whether due to political pressure or executive pressure or any

other pressure (including, as it seems, ‘judicial pressure’) that could

compromise the investigations. It is only when the Investigating Officer

or the Investigating Team is given a free hand that the investigations will

be meaningful, fair and with integrity.

24. Yet another purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure that the

Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team (as the case may be) does

not deviate from the natural course of investigations for whatever reason,

either due to pressure or due to a misdirection or some other extraneous

reason. This is the limited role of a Constitutional Court in monitoring

investigations in a continuing mandamus.

25. Consequently, the apprehension that the observations said to have

been made by this Court on 30 th July, 2018 would influence the SIT is

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 16 of 20 erroneous.

26. It is equally clear that once the judicial process has begun with the

filing of the final report or charge sheet as the case may be, the concerned

court is in complete charge and full control of the proceedings. No one,

and that again means no one, can interfere in the course of judicial

proceedings otherwise it would amount to interference in the due course

of justice or the administration of justice. It is for this reason that when

investigations are complete and a final report or charge sheet is filed, the

Constitutional Court keeps its hands off any further progress in the

matter. We are fortunate to have an independent judiciary and as far as the

EEVFAM case is concerned there has been no allegation of any kind that

any Trial Judge dealing with the case has shown a lack of independence.

Interference in the due course of justice or the administration of justice

would lead to adverse consequences. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the

applicants/petitioners to harbour any apprehension that the Trial Judge(s)

would be influenced by the observations said to have been made by this

Court on 30th July, 2018. The applicants/petitioners are indirectly, perhaps

unwittingly, questioning the fairness and independence of the judiciary.

27. The upshot of this discussion is that there can be no interference in

investigations and the courts cannot brook any interference in the judicial

process. An exception may occur as we have noticed above, when there

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 17 of 20 is an unjustified deviation from the natural course of investigations or

illegal interference in the judicial process. Such a situation would be rare

and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and it is to pre-

empt this that the Constitutional Courts monitor investigations on

extraordinary occasions. Consequently, the apprehension expressed by

the applicants/petitioners that due to the observations said to have been

made by this Court there would be interference in the investigations by

the SIT all interference in the due judicial process by the courses not real

or justified.

28. The decisions cited before us by learned counsel and learned

Amicus do not deal with or concern the situation confronting us.

29. A few other contentions have been urged before us by learned

counsel for the applicants/petitioners. It is submitted that the observations

said to have been made by this Court can impact on the decisions to be

taken by the SIT. We do not find any basis for any such apprehension.

The SIT is independent and so far, no allegation of unfairness has been

made against the functioning of the SIT. Observations made by this Court

or any court for that matter cannot impact on the investigations as long as

they are conducted by professionals and we have no doubt that the SIT

does consist of professionals who will not be swayed by any observations

made by this Court during the continuing mandamus process.

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 18 of 20

30. It was also submitted and this submission was supported by the

learned Attorney General that the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces

and the Manipur Police have been demoralised by the observations made

by this Court. This is a rather overbroad submission. In any event, in our

opinion, it should be clear to everyone that officers and personnel of the

Indian Army, paramilitary forces and the State Police are made of much

sterner stuff than is sought to be projected and they can hardly be

demoralised by observations said to have been made by anybody. It is

unfortunate that a bogey of demoralization of the Indian Army,

paramilitary forces and the State Police is being raised. We are unable to

comprehend the reason for this. As mentioned earlier, the Indian Army,

paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police are made of sterner stuff and

are disciplined forces strong enough to take everything in their stride. To

contend that some observations said to have been made by this Court

have demoralized the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the

Manipur Police is suggestive of a weakness in them. Be that as it may,

this is really stretching the argument to the vanishing point.

31. That apart, there is no material to support the theory of the Indian

Army, paramilitary forces and the Manipur Police being demoralised. It is

only a submission made for some unfathomable reason.

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 19 of 20

32. The continuing mandamus must go on and the independence and

integrity of the SIT and the judges dealing with the final reports/charge-

sheets must be maintained. Therefore, even though there is no reason for

the applicants/petitioners to entertain any doubt that the SIT or the

judiciary would be influenced by the observations said to have been made

by this Court, to remove any vestige of doubt, we make it absolutely clear

that any observations made or said to have been made on 30 th July, 2018

during the implementation of the orders of this Court through a

continuing mandamus are not intended to and should not in any manner

be construed as compromising the independence, integrity and fairness of

the SIT and the concerned judges. Institutional integrity of the CBI and

the judiciary is positively required to be maintained.

33. We see no merit in these applications and they are accordingly

dismissed. The writ petitions be listed for preliminary hearing on

26th November, 2018 at 2 PM.

...……………………J (Madan B. Lokur)

...…………………....J New Delhi; (Uday Umesh Lalit) November 12, 2018

Crl. MP No.125554/2018 IN W.P. (Crl.) No. 205/2018 etc. etc. Page 20 of 20