English
English
English
Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the petitioners and other bona fide, public-spirited individuals to place before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) suggestions on aspects that may require closer scrutiny in its investigation into alleged irregularities involving funds collected for the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the direction while hearing a batch of petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged misappropriation of donations received for the temple project.
The Court directed that suggestions from the petitioners or other bona fide persons should be submitted to the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Solicitor General's office will thereafter forward the material to the SIT for its consideration.
The Bench expressed confidence that the investigating team would objectively examine such suggestions, particularly those concerning aspects of the alleged financial irregularities that may warrant further investigation.
The Court has been monitoring the SIT investigation after declining, at this stage, to transfer the matter to the CBI. The SIT comprises police officers and also includes a forensic auditor, with the Supreme Court retaining supervisory oversight over the investigation.
During Monday's proceedings, the counsel appearing for one of the petitioners sought access to investigation material, arguing that the petitioners should be supplied relevant documents to enable them to assist the Court effectively. Solicitor General Mehta opposed the request, maintaining that investigative material could not ordinarily be disclosed to persons who were not part of the investigation.
The petitioner's counsel countered that the proceedings had been instituted in the public interest and that the petitioners ought to have sufficient information to assist the Court in scrutinising the investigation.
The Bench, however, adopted a different mechanism by permitting petitioners and bona fide public-spirited persons to submit specific suggestions concerning the scope and quality of the investigation. This approach allows the Court to retain judicial supervision over the probe while avoiding premature disclosure of sensitive investigative material.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also indicated that the Court remained open to issuing further directions if deficiencies in the investigation were brought to its notice. The CJI observed that if the SIT's functioning was found to be satisfactory, there would be no reason for intervention; however, if shortcomings or a need for qualitative improvement emerged, the Court could consider issuing appropriate directions.
The Court further made it clear that the SIT remains accountable to the Supreme Court. The investigating team is required to submit its status report directly to the apex court, initially in a sealed cover. The Court will examine the report before deciding whether its contents should be disclosed to the parties.
This arrangement assumes significance in view of the competing demands for transparency and the confidentiality ordinarily attached to an ongoing criminal investigation. By retaining control over the SIT's reports, the Supreme Court has sought to balance judicial oversight with the need to preserve the integrity of the investigative process.
The proceedings arise from allegations concerning the alleged diversion or misappropriation of funds donated for the construction of the Ram Mandir. Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought a status report from the SIT and directed the investigating authorities to pursue the matter expeditiously.
The Court had also previously cautioned against giving a political colour to the controversy, emphasising that the proceedings concern allegations of criminality and that the primary objective is to ensure a proper and credible investigation.
The latest order therefore does not conclude the controversy over the alleged financial irregularities. Instead, it establishes an avenue through which petitioners and other genuinely public-spirited persons can flag specific investigative concerns to the SIT through the Solicitor General's office, while leaving the ultimate assessment of the probe with the Supreme Court.
As the investigation remains underway, the matter has been adjourned for further consideration. The SIT's forthcoming status report is likely to be central to the Court's assessment of whether the investigation has proceeded comprehensively and whether any additional judicial directions are warranted.
