Vineet v.

Union of India

ABSTRACT
The following is a brief case analysis of the case titled VineetNarain v. Union of India [1 SCC
226] or popularly known as Jain Hawala Case. It is considered as a landmark case that helped to
restore the faith in rule of law in India. This case has been read, summarized and analyzed
broadly under the following headings: facts of the case, issues at hand, arguments from both
sides, legal aspects involved and overview of the judgment. In this case, the Supreme Court dealt
with the issues of autonomy of Central Bureau of Investigation and other special investigating
agencies that failed to investigate high ranking officials and powerful politicians and criminals.
A writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution seeking courts to ensure proper
investigation into the scam. the court reconstructed the structure of the vigilance and
recommended committee for the protection of these agencies and to prevent any further abuse of
power. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reconstructed the structure of the vigilance and
recommended committee for the protection of the agencies to prevent any abuse of power.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

• On 25th March 1991, one Ashfak Hussain Lone, alleged to be an Official of the terrorist
organization HizbulMujahideen, was arrested in Delhi. Consequent upon his interrogation,
raids were conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the premises of Surender
Kumar Jain, his brothers, relations, and businesses.

• The CBI seized two diaries and two notebooks from the premises which contained initials of
the high-ranking bureaucrats indicating payments.

• The gist of the allegations made in the hawala case petition was that financial support was
given to terrorists by clandestine means using tainted funds from “hawala” transactions. The
CBI had failed to investigate this properly and prosecute those involved.1

1
• Consequently, VineetNarain filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution
seeking courts to ensure proper investigation into the scam. Based on the allegations made
against the accused, the C.B.I when conducted the investigations under the monitoring of the
court 14 people were charge-sheeted in the first instance, and over time the names keep adding
on further investigation.

• Owing to this corruption and lacuna of legislation to protect the autonomy of the special
investigating agencies, the court reconstructed the structure of the vigilance and recommended
committee for the protection of these agencies and to prevent any further abuse of power in
cases where high ranking officials were involved.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

• The first issue was regarding the need for the insulation of investigating agencies from any
extraneous influence to ensure the continuance of the good work they have commenced.

• Whether CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE

The appellants arguments were divided into 2 broad categories-firstly to the seeking justice by
the investigation of the hawala scam by the C.B.I properly as the appellant has claimed that the
C.B.I failed to properly discharge their duties by investigating the matter owing to the power and
influence of the people involved as some of them were eminent bureaucrats while others were
high ranked politicians. Also, the appellant requested the court to uncover the scam and
prosecute the accused if found guilty, and secondly, they asked for a proper remedial structure to
ensure that this doesn’t happen again as this politico-bureaucrat-criminal nexus will continue to
hinder the agencies in discharging their duties.

LEGAL ASPECTS
• CONTINUING MANDAMUS

It was, in this case, the term ‘continuing Mandamus’ was coined. Verma CJ held that in certain
cases it was more advantageous to not hear the matter through and issue a simple mandamus,
leaving it to the authorities to comply with it, but instead, to keep the matter pending while
investigations were being carried on and ensuring that this was done by monitoring them from
time to time and issuing orders in this behalf. It was held that in certain cases the issuing of a
writ of mandamus to the agencies would be futile and, therefore it was decided to issue
directions from time to time and keep the matter pending, requiring the agencies to report the
progress of the investigation so that monitoring by the court could ensure continuance of the
investigation. This act was thus termed as continuing mandamus.2

In this case, the reach of the writ of mandamus was extended, and monitoring was taken over
only because the superiors to whom the investigating authorities were supposed to report to were
themselves involved or suspected to be involved in the crimes that were to be investigated.

The Court has extended its functions through the writ of mandamus in a similar manner in
several cases before and after this case.3

VIEW OF THE COURT

The Court agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public
corruption.  It laid down guidelines to ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI and
ordered that the CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC), an independent governmental agency intended to be free from executive control or
interference.  This directive removed the CBI from the supervision of the Central Government
thought to be partly responsible for the inertia that contributed to the CBI’s previous lack of
urgency with respect to the investigation of high-ranking officials.  The CVC was now
responsible for ensuring that allegations of corruption against public officials were thoroughly

2Shreemanshu Kumar Dash, ‘Writ of Continuing Mandamus in matters of PILs: A Step towards Development of
Environmental Jurisprudence’(2017) 22(8)IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)
<http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2022%20Issue8/Version-9/E2208092635.pdf> accessed 25
April,2020
3 Supra note 3
investigated regardless of the identity of the accused and without interference from the
Government.
The Supreme Court in its verdict had pronounced that measures to be shield the CBI director
from outside interference and make the director’s post more transparent.
The measures are:
• The CBI directors shall have minimum tenure of two years, regardless of the date of his
superannuation.
• The CVC shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of CBI.
• The transfer of an incumbent director, CBI in an extraordinary situation, including the need for
him take up a more assignment, should have the approval of the selection committee.
The Supreme Court has laid down these measures recognizing the need to provide permanent
insulation to agencies such as CBI against influences to enable them to discharge their duties in
the manner required for proper implementation of the rule of law.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

The judgment in this Jain-Hawala case was a historic and a path-breaking judgment. It
identified the loopholes in the structural and procedural system of special agencies and provided
for a strong and independent system of checks and balances so that these agencies can discharge
their duties efficiently. Along with that it also struck down the arbitrary provision of the single
directive which was shielding the govt. servants from the investigation. The decision clarified the
picture on the investigating agencies such as CBI/ED and their supporting subsystems such as
prosecution agencies and nodal agencies. Overall, the judgment upheld the rule of law which is
the constitutional bedrock.

The Court’s directions pertaining to structural relief were followed by the executive in the
immediate aftermath of the decision but without a detailed investigation into individual cases it is
not possible to assess the extent to which they were enforced.

The Court in this case had struck down the validity of a directive issued by the Ministries and
Departments in the Central Government that required the CBI to seek approval of the Central
Government before pursuing investigation against bureaucrats of the level of Joint Secretary and
above on grounds that it violated the independence of the investigative process. However, the
Central Vigilance Commissioner Act, 2003, reinstated this requirement. The primary purpose of
the case was to compel a proper investigation into the scam. The focus of the judgment on the
future and autonomy of the CBI may have been a way to divert attention from the issue of the
scam. And as regards the directions of the court relating to the CBI, these were heavily diluted
by politicians during implementation which resulted in the CVC being essentially toothless and
controlled by the government. 

CONCLUSION

Effectively addressing public corruption is essential for the sustainable realization of economic
and social rights since the impact of corruption often overlaps with violations of economic and
social rights. This case is thus a step in the right direction in providing a mode of accountability
in public life. This case is also significant because the Supreme Court liberally interpreted its
powers under the Constitution to devise various innovative procedural techniques. These include:
the appointment of amicus curiae to provide assistance to the court on legal issues: exercising
supervisory jurisdiction to monitor implementation and delivering detailed directions to the
executive and formulating guidelines to fill a legislative vacuum on the issue of public
corruption. This case created public awareness regarding the issue of corruption, and inspired
people to engage with the judicial system through the process of public interest litigation