The Supreme Court has recently issued an interim stay on the Rajasthan High Court’s directive mandating the transfer of 2 criminal investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
This decision adhere to assurances from the Rajasthan BJP-led government that state law enforcement agencies would ensure an “unbiased and impartial investigation.”
The cases under scrutiny originate from complaints filed by mine operator Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi. One case implicates Ramlal Jat, a former minister in the previous Congress-led administration, while the other names Anand Srivastava, whose brother holds a senior position in the Indian Police Service (IPS) in Rajasthan.
The allegations pertain to the falsification of a rental agreement and the misappropriation of mining equipment between 2018 and January 2021.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, in their February 24 order, stated that “in the meantime, the effect and operation of the impugned order(s) shall remain stayed.”
The Rajasthan High Court, in its decision to transfer the investigations to the CBI, cited significant concerns regarding procedural integrity. It noted that the complainant had levied serious allegations of “malafide investigation and collusion between the accused persons and the police.” The court further criticized delays in the registration of First Information Reports and the lack of substantive progress in the investigation, which raised legitimate concerns about the impartiality of the process.
“The allegations of fabrication of evidence are also grave,” the court remarked.
A critical issue emphasized by the high court was the potential for undue influence exerted by the accused.
The judgment stated, “The high-ranking position of a close relative of the accused, coupled with the fact that any investigating officer assigned to this case would be a subordinate of the accused’s brother, presents a matter of grave concern before this court.”
The court underscored that multiple instances indicated the accused’s ability to influence the investigation.
Expressing dismay at the manner in which the case had been handled, the presiding judge remarked, “I was deeply astounded to learn that the investigating officer, the circle officer of Asind, who was keeping the file with him since the last 6 months, is unaware of the fact that the additional director general of police of the state of Rajasthan is the brother of the accused.”
While the court refrained from definitively affirming Joshi’s allegations, it acknowledged that the sequence of events warranted judicial scrutiny. Concerns over political interference and repeated transfers of the investigation led the court to conclude that “only an independent and credible agency like the CBI can ensure a fair, unbiased, and transparent inquiry.
This court also feels that the message in society should not go wrong that the law bows down or succumbs before power, influence, or the mighty, and that justice remains undone.”
The Rajasthan government, in its appeal against the high court’s order, contended that the dispute was fundamentally a commercial disagreement among mining partners, including Joshi, rather than a matter meriting criminal investigation. It argued that the high court had erroneously accepted Joshi’s oral assertions without sufficient evidentiary substantiation.
Assuring the Supreme Court of the credibility of its investigative process, the state government asserted, “Each aspect of the matter shall be investigated by a senior-level officer, including or headed by the Director General of Police (DGP) if required, based on actual evidence and all material facts.”
Furthermore, the government maintained that transferring investigations to the CBI should be an “extraordinary measure” exercised “sparingly” and only under “exceptional circumstances.”
Addressing the alleged influence of a senior IPS officer related to one of the accused, the state clarified that the officer “is not even in the stream of any investigation system of the state.” It asserted that the officer’s duties were confined to the deployment of armed forces and that his posting predated the FIR’s registration.
The government further assured the judiciary that any proven misconduct by state law enforcement officials would be addressed in accordance with the law.
The Rajasthan government concluded its submission by stating that while it does not oppose a CBI inquiry in principle, it questions the legal validity of the high court’s directive.
“The state police agency is competent and would submit its report in the pending investigation based on the evidence collected,” it reiterated, reaffirming its commitment to an “unbiased and impartial investigation.”
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
