[LIFE Mission Case] Kerala High Court DB Dismisses PIL Seeking Interference In Proceedings Before Single Bench

Varghese had sought registration of FIR against the Pinarayi Vijayan, the Chief Minister of Kerala and M. Shivashankaran, Former Principal Secretary to the CM, for various offences allegedly committed by them in the scams, like Sprinklr deal, Gold smuggling, red crescent-Life Mission etc.

Declining this plea, the Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed,

"Fundamentally speaking, there is no such procedure of interference by a writ court in a Public Interest Litigation seeking intervention in a pending proceedings before the learned single Judge. The Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Kerala High Court Act, and the Rules of the High Court enables a writ court to function only in accordance with the powers conferred thereunder and the constitution and the laws and not abrogative to law. This is more so when an aggrieved person is left with a right and liberty to take up the matter before any appellate legal forum and so is the case of the writ petitioner."

It added,

"it is made clear that the power of a learned single Judge is regulated by Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, wherein as per subSection (3), the single Judge is vested with power to exercise original jurisdiction under any law for the time being in force, apart from exercise of other powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. So also, as per clause 10 (iii) of Section 3 a single Judge is vested with powers to consider petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except where such power relates to the issue of a writ of the nature of the Habeas Corpus. We are also of the view when powers to be exercised by the Judges are clearly delineated in the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 interference with such powers of a learned single Judge is basically deprecated and therefore, a writ petition filed with the intention of such interference collatorily cannot be sustained under law"

Background

The Chief Executive Officer of 'LIFE Mission' project under the Kerala Government had approached the HC in Crl. MC No. 4375/2020, seeking to quash the FIR registered over alleged violations of FCRA in relation to accepting foreign donations from UAE.

Considering the petition for admission, a single bench of Justice V G Arun said that the Court cannot interfere with the investigation at this stage and that it needs to wait for more details to emerge. The bench orally remarked "let the investigation go on". The bench added that the CEO has not been named as an accused and that he has only been summoned to produce certain documents and that he should cooperate with the probe.

The Petitioner herein, who is also an intervening part in the said proceedings before the Single Judge, sought quashing of those proceedings, in public interest.

The thrust of his contention was that a Government Pleader had been "subterfuged" to quash the complaint as against the Chairman of the Life Mission namely, the Chief Minister and the other Government officials. This was contended to be an abuse of process of court and illegal and unconstitutional.

The case projected by the Petitioner was that the Life Mission project is headed by the Chief Minister of Kerala as the Chairman and therefore, engagement of the Senior Government Pleader to file the Crl.M.C before a learned single Judge is unconstitutional and illegal, since the State Government is duty bound to protect the interest of the State in regard to the corruption, and the allegation of misuse of funds made against the said organization.

The Petitioner submitted,

"The Chief Minister and other officials against whom complaint dated 20.09.2020 was made are entitled to seek quashing of the same and they are entitled to succeed also, if they could convince the learned single Judge. However, the attempt was made by the Chief Minister to quash the complaint by filing the Crl. M.C through the Chief Executive Officer of the Life Mission, which is a gross abuse of law."

State's Response

The State Government had submitted that the Petitioner himself is an intervening party in the proceedings before the Single Judge and any collateral challenge against the institution of Crl. MC is not maintainable in a writ petition.

It was submitted that the Petitioner, in effect, was seeking injunction against a third party from taking recourse to law, which is not maintainable by virtue of Section 41(b) and (d) of the Specific Relief Act.

Findings

The High Court observed that the Petitioner had failed to point out any law enabling the Court to exercise the power of writ jurisdiction to interfere with the pending proceedings before a Single Judge, by granting declaratory reliefs with respect to the jurisdictional and maintainability aspect of the proceedings.

It observed,

"A writ of mandamus, which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or normally and ordinarily used to regulate administrative, ministerial and statutory actions of the authorities, cannot be applied to correct or regulate the power exercised by a learned single Judge functioning in accordance with law.
… the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by the writ court to regulate and control the proceedings pending before a learned single Judge of this Court exercising the power also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Reliance was placed on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1, where it was held that judicial orders passed by the High Court or in relation to proceedings pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 32(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the exercise of discretion under Article 482 of the Constitution in those proceedings, has to be considered by the Single Judge himself, on the merits of the case. It held,

"We are of the opinion that those are all matters to be considered by the learned single Judge while considering the subject issue on its merit. Therefore, we do not think that the declaratory reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner, which would interfere with the proceedings in Crl.M.C No. 4375 of 2020 and the power enjoyed by the learned Single Judge, are reliefs which could be granted by this Court exercising the power of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

At this juncture, the Petitioner submitted that his plea is not an attempt to stall or scuttle the proceedings pending before the Single Judge. However, the Court remained unconvinced and it held,

"We are of the considered opinion that declaratory reliefs sought for by the petitioner make it clear that the proceedings are attempted to be interfered with in a circuitous manner. Which thus means, if any declaratory reliefs as is sought for by the writ petitioner is granted, it would have a deleterious effect of interfering with the proceedings of the learned single Judge.

The power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be stretched or elongated to that extent of interference in a proceeding of a learned single Judge functioning in accordance with the powers conferred under the Constitution of India and the laws."

The Court further observed that the jurisdiction and procedure in respect of consideration of such applications for quashing of criminal complaints is prescribed under CrPC and merely raising the plea of public interest would not warrant interference in such jurisdiction or procedure.

It held,

"The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure in respect of consideration of such an application, and rights of any affected person to challenge the orders in accordance with law. We do not think, merely because the scams alleged by the petitioner may have some public interest, that public interest cannot be brought into play for the purpose of interfering with the jurisdiction exercised by a learned single Judge in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also in accordance with the power exercised under the Constitution of India."

The Court also remarked in the passing,

"in spite of the writ petition running to 37 pages, nowhere it is stated, what are the issues involved in the scams and how the persons arrayed as parties are related to the said scams. Repeated allegations are made that the said persons are involved in the scams and therefore, the investigation is insisted upon."

Related News

Earlier, Varghese had approached the High Court seeking CBI/ NIA investigation in the Kerala Gold Smuggling scam, Sprinklr Deal, BevQ App. scam and e-Mobility Consultancy scam, allegedly involving Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and former Principal Secretary M. Shivashankaran.

That plea was dismissed by the same Division Bench as there was no substantial evidence or material placed on record.

[Kerala Gold Smuggling] Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Investigation Against Kerala CM & His Former Secretary

"The petitioner has solely relied on the statement of the Leader of the Opposition and contended that if it is true, the matter requires investigation. As such, he has no evidence or material, and that is why he has prayed for an interim direction, as stated above. Investigation is the function of the police and writ court cannot be converted as an investigation agency," the Bench had held.

Case Title: Michael Varghese v. Pinarayi Vijayan & Ors.

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment