$~2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 6426/2006
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prashant Bhushan with Mr.Rohit
Kumar Singh and Mr.O.Kuttan, Advs.
versus
UOI AND ANR

..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay
Jain,
ASG
with
Mr.Jasmeet Singh, CGSC, Ms.Aastha Jain and
Mr.Srivats, Advs. for UOI.
Ms.Sonia Mathur, Adv. for CBI
Mr.Anup J.Bhambani, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ritesh
Dhar Dubey, Adv. for Outlook Publishing.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
13.01.2016

%
1.

This petition by way of Public Interest Litigation was filed on

26.04.2006 with the following prayers:

(a) order a thorough court monitored investigation by
the CBI or by a Special Investigation Group, constituted
by this Honble Court, in the involvement of
unauthorized middlemen/commission agents in the
Scorpene submarine procurement deal and payment of
commission/bribes, and if such allegations are found
correct, pass further consequential and necessary
directions, including prosecution of the persons found
involved;

W.P.(C) No.6426/2006

Page 1 of 4

(b) direct the Respondents to identify the officials

guilty of serious dereliction of duty in not taking timely
and appropriate action to check the involvement of
middlemen/commission agents and payment of
commission/bribes in the Scorpene deal despite
knowledge and to take appropriate disciplinary and penal
action against them;
2.

On the basis of certain investigative reports published in weekly news

magazine Outlook in its edition of 20.02.2006 and 27.02.2006, it is

alleged in the writ petition that the agreement by respondent No.1 and 2 with
the French Government and Thales (a French Company) on 07.10.2005 to
procure the Scorpene submarines is actuated with mala fides and extraneous
considerations and that the same needs to be thoroughly investigated.
3.

The allegations in the petition included that the respondent Nos.1 and

2 went ahead with the deal despite having knowledge about the involvement
of middlemen as pointed out by the Central Vigilance Commission and the
CVO of Ministry of Defence way back in 2002; though CVC in its report
had informed the respondent No.1 that one of the companies involved in the
deal, namely, DCNI (the manufacturer of Scorpene submarines) was
blacklisted by the CVO of Ministry of Defence, the respondent Nos.1 and 2
went ahead and signed the deal; four months after the signing of the deal,
though it was exposed by a respectable news magazine about the
involvement of the middlemen and payment of huge commission/bribes, the
respondent No.1 failed to take any steps to review the deal and order an
investigation but merely ordered an inquiry by CBI against some of the
Naval Officers into the issue of the leak of classified information of the
Navy which led to the exposure of the involvement of the middlemen in the
Scorpene deal.
W.P.(C) No.6426/2006

Page 2 of 4

4.

It is pleaded in the writ petition that for ascertaining and gathering all

facts into the alleged high-level corruption in the Defence deals, the
intervention by this court is essential to order a complete investigation under
its direct supervision by CBI or any other independent investigating agency.
5.

On 06.12.2006, a status report with regard to the investigation

conducted by CBI into the allegation of Navy War Room Leak was filed
in a sealed cover by the learned ASG appearing fro the respondents. On
17.12.2007, it was brought to the notice of this court by the learned ASG
that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner dated 03.03.2006 (filed
in this petition as Annexure-P23), CBI had instituted a Preliminary Enquiry.
6.

Thereafter on 25.07.2008, a copy of the report of the Preliminary

Enquiry by CBI was filed in this court in two sealed covers.

7.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to

furnish a copy of the said report to him, it is opposed by the learned counsel
for the CBI claiming privilege on the ground that it has received replies from
the National Central Bureau of United Kingdom, Canada and Switzerland
with the condition that the information supplied by them should not be
shared by private parties.
8.

Having perused the Preliminary Enquiry Report, we are of the view

that there is substance in the objection raised by the respondents for

furnishing a copy of the Preliminary Enquiry Report to the petitioner.
Hence, the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to furnish a copy
of the report cannot be acceded to.
9.

We have carefully gone through the Preliminary Enquiry Report. We

found that it is concluded in the Report that in view of the inquiries made
with the Ministry of Defence and in the light of the discussion of various
W.P.(C) No.6426/2006

Page 3 of 4

aspects mentioned therein the allegations regarding irregularities in

processing of Scorpene deal are not established and the material available is
not sufficient for registering a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988.
10.

In the light of the said Report, the relief as prayed for cannot be

granted.
11.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

12.

The report of the CBI filed in this Court in sealed cover be returned to

Ms.Sonia Mathur, the learned counsel for CBI.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAYANT NATH, J
JANUARY 13, 2016
kks

W.P.(C) No.6426/2006

Page 4 of 4