CPIL Submissions on CJI's Remark Revised _2

7/25/2019 CPIL Submissions on CJI's Remark Revised _2

1/16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO.382OF 2014

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONIN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION .. THE PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA &ORS .. THE RESPONDENTS

SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES AND QUERIES

ABOUT CPIL RAISED BY THE HONBLE COURT

1. In view of certain observations and questions raised by the Court at the

hearing on 12.01.2016 of the above petition, it is essential to clarify

matters and present to the Court full and correct facts. It is respectfully

requested that the following submissions be taken into consideration.

PILs and the Indian Vision

2. This Honble Court is well aware of the extensive public interest litigation

done by CPIL and is cognizant of the huge impact of its landmark

decisions in the matters agitated by CPIL. In not one of the CPIL matters

has this Honble Court questioned the bona fidesof CPIL. In not even a

single CPIL matter has this Court found the petitions of CPIL motivated. Innot even one of the cases did the Court find CPIL acting on behalf of a

party having a vested interest.

3. The greatrenown and reputation enjoyed by the Indian Judiciary owes

immensely to the development and expansion of public interest jurisdiction

by the past visionary judges of the Supreme Court.This development and

expansion owes a great debt to the Indian media which has championed

the cause of underprivileged, and has exposed mis-governance and

corruption. CPIL has been in the forefront of this movement. In recent

years, it has secured from this Honble Court many a landmark decision,

e.g. the delineation of the concept of institutional integrity in the CVC case,

and the development of a framework for allocation of national resources in

accordance with the Constitutional principles of trusteeship and equity


2/16


3/16

2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan

3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves

4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal

5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan

We also reaffirm and continue the appointment of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal asSecretary of the Society who is authorized to sign the Vakalatnama andaffidavits on behalf of the Society. She can act to file cases afterconsulting the aforesaid subcommittee either telephonically or by emails.We further confirm and resolve to authorize Kamini Jaiswal and PrashantBhushan to decide whom to engage for appearing in and arguing casesbefore the courts, in consultation with the President, Mr. Anil Divan. We

confirm and ratify all acts done by them in filing and pursuit of PILs filedby them on behalf of the society.Mr Nariman has not been a member of the sub-committee and thereforehe had not scrutinized the petition filed against Reliance. Moreover, I hadnever stated that he had done so. However your incorrect reporting hascaused serious confusion and damage to the reputation of CPIL andmyself.Kindly carry this clarification on your website as prominently as your newsreport.

Prashant Bhushan

5. ShriDhananjayMahapatra of the Times of India has clarified in an email

dated 15.01.2016 addressed to Shri Prashant Bhushan as under:

Prashant Bhai,

We have never said in our January 14th report that Nariman was

part of the committee which scrutinizes the PILs. We had just said

that Nariman was part of the founding members of the CPIL.

The next days report was based on a letter received from

Narimans office.

Dhananjay.

6. Mail Today has issued a clarification on 17.01.2016 which is as under:

In the report Bhushans PIL draws CJIs wrath (January 13), it was

wrongly mentioned that noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan had told the

Supreme Court that senior lawyer Fali S Nariman was part of the sub-

committee which decides on PILs to be filed by NGO Centre for Public

Interest Litigation (CPIL). It is made clear that Nariman, a founder member

of the CPIL is only a member of its governing council which has authorized

a sub-committee to decide on the PILs to be filed. Nariman is not part of

the panel which vets the PILs. He also did not scrutinize the petition


4/16

against Reliance which was being heard by the Supreme Court. We regret

the error.

7. It was the Mail Todays report which ShriFali Nariman had cited in hisletter to the Registrar General dated 14.01.2016 stating that he was not

involved in vetting the PILs filed by CPIL. In view of the confusion created

due to wrong reporting,Shri Nariman has now resigned from CPIL.

8. As clarified in detail hereinafter, Shri Fali Nariman was not a member of

the sub-committee which decides on filing of PILs, but he wasa founder

member and was a member of the governing body of CPIL. It is hereby

affirmed that any impression that Shri Nariman had scrutinized the

petitions filed by CPIL, including the present petition, is incorrect.

9. In the light of these developments, at an urgent meeting of the CPILs

governing body, the following resolution was passed on 15.01.2016:

That the Governing Body of CPIL met today to take stock of certain

observations made by the Honble CJI in 4G case (WPC 382 of 2014) on

12.01.2016 which were widely reported in the media.

That the governing body decided that CPIL must place its submissions

before the court in response to the said observations by the Honble CJI.

That the submissions would be finalized by the Sub-Committee which is

already in place for deciding the PILs to be filed by CPIL.

10. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner seeks leave of this Honble Court

to file these submissions to address the queries concerning the

background of the petitioner, the system followed by the Petitioner in filing

PILs, the scrutiny of the information received and other related issues.

About the petitioner

11. CPIL was established as a registered society by its founder President,Late Shri V M Tarkunde.It was registered on 19.06.1984.The object of the

visionary Justice V M Tarkunde was to put in place with the help of public

spirited lawyers a structure which would give voice to the voiceless,enable

them to enjoy access to justice, and take up issues involving serious

public interest before the Court.Underlying this initiative was the conviction

that most citizens/individuals would not have the energy, financial

resources, time and opportunity to assert their collective rights, especially


5/16

when confronted by vested interests. Many would be intimidated by

powerful lobbies and afraid of being victimized. They would lack the

courage to come out openly against wielders of power and authority.

The aims and objects for which the Society was established include: To carry out research into the area of public interest

litigation in India and also to undertake/support such litigation

with a view to ascertain its proper scope and ambit and the

precautions to be taken in order that it may promote public

interest and may not be counter-productive;

To provide assistance, legal and monetary, in the matter of

filing and conducting public interest litigation in differentCourts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court and the Delhi

High Court;

To popularize public interest litigation as a means of

promoting public welfare, particularly of the poor and the

needy;

12. The settled practice adopted by CPIL is as under:

ShriPrashant Bhushan with the assistance of his juniors and after

discussions with Ms. Kamini Jaiswal looks into and scrutinizes carefully

the materials on which a potential PIL is to be drafted. If the material

comes from a doubtful source, it is examined with suspicion and utmost

care. On the basis of the quality of the material, e.g. CAG reports,

documents obtained under RTI, or supplied by whistleblowers, journalists

or others, a considered decision is taken to go ahead or not with the

petition. The majority of the litigation proposals coming to CPIL are

rejected, sinceit is felt that the material is doubtful, or the matter does not

raise a major issue of public importance. In fact, Shri Prashant Bhushan

and at least three of his juniors are spending the bulk of their time in

scrutinizing PIL proposals and the material which comes with

them.Thereafter, the members of the sub-committee which decides

whether to file the PIL or not, are consulted personally or on

telephone/email and accordingly the proposed PIL is either filed or

dropped. This practice has been approved and ratified by the Resolution

dated 04.01.2013which has been filed in this Honble Court through

affidavit dated 09.01.2013 in WPC 505/2012, titled as CPIL v. UOI and

Ors. (re. RAW, IB matter). The said resolution specifically states that She


6/16

(i.e. Kamini Jaiswal) can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid

sub-committee either telephonically or by emails.

13. In the petitions filed by CPIL, affidavits in support have mainly been filedby the General Secretary. This position has been held byShriAshok Panda

and MsKamini Jaiswal. In fact, it is settled practice of this Honble Court

that PILs may be entertained on mere letters, press reports,suomotu, etc.

on the basis of the credibility and quality of the information and the

standing of the petitioner. CPIL states that in the present case no

material has been received from any business rival or competitor.

CPIL has adhered to and stands by the practice of filing properly

documented petitions supported by the affidavit of the Secretaryin

accordance with the settled practice ratified by the Resolution dated

04.01.2013.

14. It needs to be pointed out that it is settled law that it is not as if petitions

filed by political rivals or interested individuals would be automatically

rejected, but it is the quality of the material, evidence and nature of the

controversy which triggers and invites the interest of the court in

entertaining a PIL. In this connection, the following authority may be cited:

VishwanathChaturvedi v. UOI (2007) 4 SCC 380 at Pg 394-395,

Extracts of para 37 and 39:

37. The ultimate test, in our view, therefore is whether the allegations

have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the

threshold because a political opponent of a person with political

differences raises an allegation of commission of offence

39. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the

PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioners interest. In our view, it is

wrong in law for the court to judge the petitioners interest without

looking into the subject-matter of his complaint and if the petitioner

shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing

the PIL.

15. It may be mentioned that in Vineet Narain vs. UOI (Jain Hawala case)

reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226, the petitioners were Vineet Narain (a

journalist), Rajinder Puri (a Journalist and Cartoonist), Kamini Jaiswal and

Prashant Bhushan. The petition relied upon photocopies of the Jain diaries


7/16

which prima facie implicated powerful individuals and averred that they

were in possession of CBI. It was an allegation and no source was

disclosed. Yet notice was issued to CBI which was forced to admit the

existence and contents of the Jain diaries. It was on the strength of theexistence and content of the diaries seized by the CBI that the whole

litigation went forward. Eventually,this Honble Court established

standards, norms and principles of good governance and public probity

which have been widely followed.

16. The Governing Body of the society in a meeting held on 05.10.1996 had

constituted a sub-committee of five members for deciding the causes to be

taken up and their names were as follows:

(i) Late Mr. V. M. Tarkunde

(ii) Mr. Anil B Divan

(iii) Mr. Shanti Bhushan

(iv) Mr. Rajinder Sachar

(v) Late Mr. H. D. Shourie.

17. The aforementioned sub-committee was re-constituted in the meeting of

the Governing Body held on 04.05.2003. The members of the sub-

committee to decide about issues/cases were as follows:

1. Mr. Anil Divan (President of CPIL)



4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary of CPIL)

5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan

18. In WPC 505 of 2012 filed by CPIL seeking accountability of intelligence

agencies, this Honble Court had directed the petitioner to place an

authorization on behalf of the society for filing the petition. Hence,

ameeting of the governing body of CPIL was convened on 04.01.2013 in

which following resolution was passed:

That we hereby resolve that in accordance with Rule 4 (b) (1) of

the Rules and Regulations of the Society, we continue and

appoint the same Sub-Committee of the following members

which was appointed on 4/5/03 to decide the petitions that will

be filed on behalf of the Society in any court of the country.

1. Mr. Anil Divan


8/16



4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal

5. Mr. Prashant BhushanWe also reaffirm and continue the appointment of Ms. Kamini

Jaiswal as Secretary of the Society who is authorized to sign

the Vakalatnama and affidavits on behalf of the Society. She

can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid

subcommittee either telephonically or by emails. We further

confirm and resolve to authorize Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant

Bhushan to decide whom to engage for appearing in andarguing cases before the courts, in consultation with the

President, Mr. Anil Divan. We confirm and ratify all acts done

by them in filing and pursuit of PILs filed by them on behalf of

the society. In particular, we approve & ratify the filing of writ

petition in the Honble Supreme Court (W.P.C. 505/2012) and the

contents of the said petition which deals with the accountability of

the intelligence agencies of the Government (i.e. RAW, IB &

NTRO).

A photocopy of the resolution dated 04.01.2013 is annexed hereto as

Annexure A(Page __________).The members who signed this

resolution included:

a) Mr. Anil B Divan (President)

b) Mr. Rajinder Sachar

c) Mr. Fali S Nariman

d) Mr. Shanti Bhushan

e) Mr. Colin Gonsalves

f) Mr. Prashant Bhushan

g) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary)

h) Mr. Ashok Panda

i) Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal

j) Late Admiral R H Tahiliani

k) Mr. AnoopSaraya

19. CPIL had filed an application for the removal of the then CBI Director

from the 2G case (IA 73 filed in CA 10660 of 2010) in which a copy of the

entry register of the residence of the CBI Director was filed. This Honble


9/16

Court vide order dated 15.09.2014 directed as underIn our opinion, before

we pass any order on the affidavit at the first instance, we request Shri

Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel to disclose the source of his

information to us which has formed the basis of the averments andallegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The information

that will be disclosed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel shall be

kept in a sealed cover and to be opened by this Court only.

20. A governing body meeting of CPIL was convened on 17.09.2014 to

discuss the course of action in which it was unanimously resolved that

CPIL would not disclose the name of the source. The resolution inter-alia

states: CPIL continuously receives important information and documents

from a large number of sources who wish to keep their identity secret. Any

disclosure of identity in one case is likely to deter sources in other cases.

Therefore, the identity of the source can be revealed only if the person

concerned agrees in writing to such a disclosure.A copy of the resolution

passed by governing body of CPIL dated 17.09.2014 is annexed as

Annexure B(Pg_________). Thereafter, this Honble Court, vide order

dated 20.11.2014, recalled its earlier order dated 15.09.2014 and allowed

the application filed by CPIL. The relevant part of the said order dated

20.11.2014 passed in CA 10660/2010 reads thus: (i) We recall our earlier

order passed on 15.09.2014 so far as it relates to I.A. No.73 of 2014. (ii)

We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to interfere in the

investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G spectrum

allocation that is carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the

case.

21. The role played by the petitioner CPIL was recognized and acknowledged

by this Honble Court in the 2G scam case while cancelling the licenses.

This Honble Court in the judgment of Centre for Public Interest Litigation

&Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors.reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1 stated:

Before concluding, we consider it imperative to observe that but for

the vigilance of some enlightened citizens who held important

constitutional and other positions and discharged their duties in

larger public interest and Non GovernmentalOrganisations who have

been constantly fighting for clean governance and accountability of

the constitutional institutions, unsuspecting citizens and the Nation

would never have known how the scarce natural resource spared by Army


10/16

has been grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been

able to manipulate the system. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed

in the following terms: The licences granted to the private respondents on

or after 10.1.2008 pursuant to two press releases issued on 10.1.2008 andsubsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees are declared illegal and

are quashed.

Source of information/documents

22. The offices of Shri Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal generally

view documents coming from non-independent sources with great care,

but, if the information appears credible and shows evidence of serious

harm to public interest which needs intervention by the Court, then the

same isappropriately used in the PIL. This is done after a dispassionate

and objective analysis about its credibility.

23. Speaking generally in respect of PILs, if information coming from

interested persons, having important bearing on public interest, were left

to be litigated by those persons, there would be serious detriment to public

interest on account of the following:

a) lack of expertise and due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings,

b) premature withdrawal of the petition in case the petitioner has been

won over and thus subverting the public interest issue,

c) the risk of summary dismissal by the court on the ground that he is

trying to promote his personal interest.

Moreover, most people who have to deal with the government are

reluctant to go to court against the government as they may be adversely

affected in their dealings with the government in future. They are also

apprehensive about intimidation, reprisal and violence.

24. CPIL was formed precisely for the purpose of taking up PILs in an

organized manner purely in public interest. Over the years, CPIL has

established its credentials as a genuine public interest organization by dint


11/16

of an array of PILs filed before this Honble Court and before the Honble

High Court of Delhi.

25. CPIL has not solicited any donations.The lawyers who pursue cases for

CPIL do it pro bono. Out of pocket expenses, like court fees, photocopying

and typing charges, are defrayed from the contributions made by the

members.The junior advocates who assist in filing PILs work in the

chambers of Shri Prashant Bhushan or Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and are

remunerated by them personally. They are not paid out of CPILs funds.

26. Some of the important PILs filed so far by the CPIL are recapitulatedbelow..

S.No. PIL Name Summary Status1. CPIL and ors vs

Union of India&Ors (CA 10660of 2010)

Petition sought courtmonitored investigationinto the 2G spectrumallocation scam

This Honble Court ismonitoring the 2Ginvestigations for the last5 years and had alsodirected the then CBIDirector to recusehimself from the casevide order dated20.11.2014

2. CPIL and ors vsUnion of India&Ors (WPC 423of 2010)

Petition soughtcancellation of 2Gspectrum allocation and122 telecom licensesawarded in 2008

This Honble Courtcancelled the entireallocation of 2Gspectrum and 122telecom licenses, anddirected fresh auction

vide its judgmentreported in (2012) 3 SCC1

3. CPIL and Anr.vsUnion of India&Anr (WPC 348of 2010)

Petition sought settingaside the appointment ofthe then CVC on theground of appointees lackof integrity

This Honble Courtquashed theappointment of theCentral VigilanceCommissioner and laiddown an important legalprinciple of institutional

integrity vide itsjudgment reported in(2011) 4 SCC 1

4. CPIL vs Union ofIndia (WPC 16 of2011)

Petition sought that allintercepted conversationsof Ms. NiiraRadia be put inpublic domain since theyshow criminality, influenceof corporates informulating public policies

This Honble Court by aninterim order directed theCBI to conductpreliminary inquiries onthe basis of the petitionfiled by the CPIL. Thepetition is pending.

5. CPIL v Registrar This petition challenged This Honble Court had


12/16

General of theHigh Court ofDelhi, WP (C)514/2015

the entire selectionprocess and evaluationmethod adopted in Main(Written) Examination ofDelhi Judicial Service,

2014 (DJS) on thegrounds of beingunreasonable, arbitraryand hence, in violation ofArticle 14 of theConstitution.

ordered for re-evaluationof the papers of thosecandidates who weresuccessful in preliminaryexamination but were not

called for interview. Thepetition is pending.

6. CPIL V.UOI &orsCWP No.171 of

2003

This petition was filedbefore this Honble Courtin 2003 challenging thelegality of the

Governments decision todisinvest and thusprivatize the Govt. OilCompanies namely HPCLand BPCL without seekingthe approval from theParliament and alsowithout amending theParliamentary enactmentsby which these companies

had been nationalized.

Disinvestment wasdisallowed by thisHonble Court withoutparliament approval.

Judgment reported as(2003) 7 SCC 532

7. CPIL V.Housing andUrbanDevelopmentCorporation&ors

CWP No. 573 of2003

This petition has been filedto bring to the notice ofthis Honble Court theaction of the Officials ofHUDCO in arbitrarilygranting loans for politicaland extraneousconsiderations without

going in to the merit ofeach case and evenignoring prescribed /established procedures,appraisal norms andfinancial prudenceincluding the advice ofBoard members.

This Honble Court hadreferred the matter to theCVC for investigationand the CVC hadsubmitted detailed report.Petition is Pending

8. CWP No.21of2004, Titledas CPIL V. UOI&ors

This petition was filedbefore this Honble Courtin2004challengingtheconstitutionalityofSubSection(c)ofSection 26 oftheCentralVigilanceCommissionAct, 2003introducingSection6AtoDelhiSpecialPoliceEstablishmentAct, 1946,which requires priorapprovalof the designated

authority to initiate the

This matter had beenreferred to theConstitution bench.ThePetition was thereafterallowed by theConstitution Bench.Section 6A was declaredultra vires.Reported in (2014) 8SCC 682


13/16

inquiry or investigationagainst certain officers ofthe Government andPublic SectorUndertakings (PSUs),

nationalised banks etcabove a certain level.

9. CPIL V.UOI &orsCWP No.180 of2004

Thispetitionhas beenfiledintheSupremeCourtin2004tochallengetheconstitutionalityofthePresidentialOrder1950accordingtowhichonlythemembers of

scheduledcastesfromHindu,BuddhistandSikhreligionsarebenefitted and the

converts from

Christianity/Islam are

deniedthebenefits.

The matter was referredby the Government toJustice RanganathMishra Commission in2005. The Commissionhas submitted its reportbefore this Honble Court

supporting thePetitioners prayers. Thematter is still Pending

10. CPIL V. UOI

CWPNo. 197 Of2004

This petition was filed in

the Supreme Court in2004 seeking directionsand guidelines to checkthe misuse of thousands ofcrores of public fundswhich is taking place at thehands of the Centralgovernment, the StateGovernments, and theagencies and corporationscontrolled by them and byother public bodies, bymeans of advertisementsissued in the print andelectronic media which arebeing used to projectpersonalities, politicalparties and particulargovernments.

Petition has been

allowed with specificdirections to theGovernment for stoppingmisuse of public funds onsuch advertisements.Reported as (2015) 7SCC 1

11. CPILV.UOI&orsCWPNo. 681 Of2004

This petition was regardingharmful effects of variouschemical additives whichare deliberately added bythe soft drinkmanufacturers in the softdrinks. In this Petitiondirections were sought forproper regulation of theingredients of the softdrinks, their full

disclosures and also for

Disposed of with certaindirections to the Foodand Safety Authority ofIndia. Reported as(2013) 16 SCC 279. ThisHonble Court alsodirected that onlyindependent experts beappointed to food safetyauthority.


14/16

proper regulation of theiradvertisements.

12. CivilWrit Petition387/2005, CPIL

V. UOI &Ors.

This Petition was filed tochallenge the appointment

of Neera YadavastheChiefSecretaryofUttarPradeshdespitetherebeingseveralcorruptioncasespendingagainsther.

She was ordered to beremoved from the post of

the Chief Secretary bythis Honble Court vide

judgment reported in(2005) 8 SCC 202.

13. CWP 6426/2006,CPIL &ors. Vs.UOI &ors.

This Petition was filed forproper and completeinvestigation into theallegation of the

involvement of themiddlemen and paymentof bribes in theprocurement of Scorpenesubmarines.

The Honble High Courthad directed the CBI toregister PE. The CBI,pursuant to the said

direction, filed its reportin a sealed cover. TheHC, on the basis of thesaid PE report butwithout sharing the samewith the Petitioner,disposed of the writpetition.

14. CPIL v UOI, WP(C) 505 of 2012

The petition is foraccountability of the

governments threeintelligence agenciesnamely IntelligenceBureau(IB), Research andAnalysis Wing (RAW) andNational TechnicalResearch Organisation(NTRO) which have beencreated by simply

executive orders withoutany statutory support. Thepetition seeks setting up ofa proper mechanism,following the modelsof other democraticcountries, so thataccountability of thesegovernmentscould be ensured.

This Honble Court hasissued notice. The case

is Pending.

15. CPIL v Union ofIndia &ors. CWPNo. 991/2013

The Petition has sought athorough and independentinvestigation intoallegations of variousmisdemeanours andbreach of laws by M/s.PricewaterhousecoopersPvt. Ltd and their variousnetwork Audit Firmsoperating in India sharingthe brand name of Pwc

and providing audit and

This Honble Court hasissued notice. Thematter is Pending


15/16

advisory services.

16. CPIL v UOI,CWP 1815 of2015

This writ petition has beenfiled before the HonbleHigh Court of Delhi

seeking direction forexpeditious investigationof corruption cases inAIIMS by the CBI, as wellseeking disciplinaryproceedings that wererecommended by theformer CVO, AIIMS.

The case is Pending.CVC and CBI havepursuant to the direction

of the Court filed theirrespective status reports.

17. CPIL v Chairman

Rajya Sabha andorsCWP No.4000 of 2015

The petition has sought to

challenge the validity ofClause 6 A of the RajyaSabha Secretariat(Methods of Recruitmentand Qualifications forAppointment) Order, 2009(hereinafter referred asOrder, 2009)

Pending before the Delhi

High Court

18. CPIL vs Union ofIndia WP (C)

2932/2012

Petition soughtindependent review of

Kashmir railway alignment,inter-alia, on the ground ofsafety and survivability ofthe present alignment.

Delhi High Court allowedthe petition and directed

the Central Governmentto constitute an expertcommittee to review theKashmir railwayalignment.The expert committeeheaded by Mr. ESreedharanin its reportaccepted that thepresent Kashmir Railway

alignment is faulty,unsafe and thealternative alignmentsuggested by thepetitioner is better invirtually all respects

19. CPIL vs. Union ofIndia WP (C)8780/2009&6813/2010

The Petition was filedseeking a writ ofmandamus to the Union ofIndia to make referenceunder Section 7 (1) of thePrasar Bharti(Broadcasting Corporationof India) Act, 1990 to theHonble Supreme Court forholding an inquiry againstMr. Baljit Singh Lalli.Despite the fact that theCVC had clearly indictedthe said CEO of the PrasarBharti Board for various

financial irregularities and

The Honble High Courtordered CVC probe

which found him guilty.This led to the

Government initiating theprocess for his removal.


16/16

misuse of his office, thegovt. was not taking anyconsequent action.

20. CPIL Vs. Unionof India CWP

4003/1995 &4430/1995

PIL was filed seekingcancellation of arbitrary

allotment of petrol pumpsthrough the Oil SelectionBoards.

The Honble High Courtcancelled several

allotments against whichindividual allotteesapproached this HonbleCourt. Matters are stillpending

21. CPIL Vs. Unionof India WP (C)No. 355 of 2011

The Petition was filedseeking a writ of quowarranto against the thenCEO & MD of IFCI toremove him from the post

of CEO & MD of IFCI ashis appointment wasillegal; and seekinginvestigation into variousallegations ofadministrative andfinancial irregularities inIFCI and direction to directUOI to exercise its controlover the IFCI

During the pendency ofthe petition, then CEOand MD was forcedtoresign by theGovernment from the

post of the CMD, IFCI.Pursuant to the petition,the Government startedexercising its control overthe IFCI. Case isPending.

22. CPIL vs UOI&Ors SLP (C)25545 of 2012

Petition seeksinvestigation by a SIT/CBIinto the purchase of over100 aircrafts by Air Indiacausing enormous loss tothe national carrier.

This Honble Court hasissued notice and thematter is pending.

1) Anil B Divan (President, CPIL)

2) Shanti Bhushan

3) Colin Gonsalves

4) Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary, CPIL)

5) Prashant Bhushan

Dated 19.01.2016

New Delh

Documents

CPIL Submissions on CJI's Remark Revised _2