The Supreme Court dismissed an interim application seeking vacation of stay on Gauhati High Court judgment which had declared CBI as an unconstitutional body..The interim application (In Union of India vs Navendra Kumar) came up for hearing before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi on November 11, when the following order was passed:.“Perused the letter circulated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 1473 of 2016 and I.A. No. 5 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2016 are dismissed.”.This would mean that the stay on the Gauhati High Court judgment would continue..On November 6, 2013 the Gauhati High Court had held that the 1963 resolution of the Union government constituting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is unconstitutional and that the CBI can be constituted only through a statute (Read order below)..It had held that,.“The resolution number 4/31/61-T dated 1/4/1963 issued by secretary to the Government of India, V. Viswanathan, constituting the CBI is ultra vires. The CBI is neither an organ nor part of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the CBI can’t be treated as a police force constituted under the act..”.The Central government had immediately challenged the same in Supreme Court. In the special leave petition settled by former Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati, the Centre had argued that the High Court’s judgment,.“directly impacted about nine thousand trials currently underway and about one thousand investigations which are being investigated by the CBI.”.Stating that the fifty-year old resolution has been issued under Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) empowering the Central Government to constitute a “special police force”, the Centre had contended that merely because the Resolution did not refer to Section 2, it cannot be concluded that the Resolution was not under the DSPE Act..The Centre had further contended that the observations of the High Court that the CBI cannot fall under Entry 8 of List I as the term “investigation” occurring in Entry 8 can only mean an “enquiry” is a misreading of the express provisions of the Constitution. It had submitted that the constitution of the CBI was under the DSPE Act, 1946 and not by way of an executive instruction alone and it was only in the alternative that a submission was made that the formation of the CBI could also be traced to Entry 8 List I..The Centre had moved the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing which was allowed at the residence of the Chief Justice of India on November 9, 2013, a Saturday..The Court had then issued notice in the matter on and stayed the judgment of the High Court..Read Order
The Supreme Court dismissed an interim application seeking vacation of stay on Gauhati High Court judgment which had declared CBI as an unconstitutional body..The interim application (In Union of India vs Navendra Kumar) came up for hearing before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi on November 11, when the following order was passed:.“Perused the letter circulated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 1473 of 2016 and I.A. No. 5 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 1476 of 2016 are dismissed.”.This would mean that the stay on the Gauhati High Court judgment would continue..On November 6, 2013 the Gauhati High Court had held that the 1963 resolution of the Union government constituting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is unconstitutional and that the CBI can be constituted only through a statute (Read order below)..It had held that,.“The resolution number 4/31/61-T dated 1/4/1963 issued by secretary to the Government of India, V. Viswanathan, constituting the CBI is ultra vires. The CBI is neither an organ nor part of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the CBI can’t be treated as a police force constituted under the act..”.The Central government had immediately challenged the same in Supreme Court. In the special leave petition settled by former Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati, the Centre had argued that the High Court’s judgment,.“directly impacted about nine thousand trials currently underway and about one thousand investigations which are being investigated by the CBI.”.Stating that the fifty-year old resolution has been issued under Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) empowering the Central Government to constitute a “special police force”, the Centre had contended that merely because the Resolution did not refer to Section 2, it cannot be concluded that the Resolution was not under the DSPE Act..The Centre had further contended that the observations of the High Court that the CBI cannot fall under Entry 8 of List I as the term “investigation” occurring in Entry 8 can only mean an “enquiry” is a misreading of the express provisions of the Constitution. It had submitted that the constitution of the CBI was under the DSPE Act, 1946 and not by way of an executive instruction alone and it was only in the alternative that a submission was made that the formation of the CBI could also be traced to Entry 8 List I..The Centre had moved the Supreme Court for an urgent hearing which was allowed at the residence of the Chief Justice of India on November 9, 2013, a Saturday..The Court had then issued notice in the matter on and stayed the judgment of the High Court..Read Order