Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ex-Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh's Plea Seeking CBI's Preliminary Enquiry Report

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh thought it fit not to entertain a petition invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 32, leaving it open for the Petitioner to appear before the competent court.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset informed the Court that initially the Court proceeded on the assumption that there was a preliminary report which stated that a cognisable offence had been committed. But, the position has changed considering the fact that the preliminary report in fact does not contain record of commission of a cognisable offence.

Without going into further submissions, the Bench enquired, "What is your prayer under Article 32?"

Mr. Sibal informed the Court that the relief he was seeking was the production of the entire records including the preliminary report before the Court. He added:

"They said that the preliminary report says that a cognisable offence is committed…"

When the Court informed the Petitioner that they are not inclined to interfere under Article 32 jurisdiction, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Your Lordship, You have proceeded on the basis that a cognisable offence had been committed. They should have told the truth to Your Lordships by way of an affidavit. Your Lordship had ordered this on that basis… the entire family member is being called on the basis that you now admit that you are the one who leaked this report. This is very unfair. If your lordships had dismissed our petition before on the basis of the preliminary report says a cognisable offence has been committed and the facts are to the contrary and they are part of the record…If true, this is true then it is a serious matter. Impacts on credibility of the agency… the FIR starts with this presumption. If the entire basis is wrong then where do we go?"

Refusing to interfere, the Bench held:

"The present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is based on the premise that the orders passed by the Court on the rationale that the preliminary enquiry may have material against petitioner. As per certain newspaper reports the Petitioner is stated to have been given a clean chit. Thereof, they have called for all records...We are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 in this scenario. It is always open for the Petitioner to approach the competent court."