Supreme Court Directs Disclosure of Preliminary Inquiry Report in Corruption Case: S.P. Velumani vs. Arappor Iyakkan (20 May 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 507

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can a person accused of corruption be denied access to a preliminary inquiry report that could potentially exonerate them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and natural justice. The case revolves around a former Tamil Nadu minister accused of misusing his powers, and the court’s decision highlights the delicate balance between the state’s power to investigate and an individual’s right to a transparent legal process. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, and Justice Hima Kohli.

Case Background

The appellant, S.P. Velumani, served as a Cabinet Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu from 2014. On 11 September 2018, R.S. Bharathi filed a complaint with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging misuse of power by the appellant. The very next day, 12 September 2018, Arappor Iyakkan, the first respondent, also filed a complaint with the same directorate and the Anti-Corruption Bureau, CBI, regarding similar allegations. As no action was taken, Arappor Iyakkan filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras, seeking a direction to register an FIR and constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The core allegation against the appellant was that he misused his position as a minister to influence tender processes, ensuring that contracts were awarded to his close associates. The High Court initially directed a preliminary inquiry and appointed Ms. Ponni, IPS, to conduct the same. A preliminary inquiry report was submitted, and the State Government initially decided to accept the report, which concluded that no cognizable offense was made out. However, with a change in the political landscape, the State Government later recanted its position and decided to investigate the matter further, relying on a CAG report.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the High Court of Madras issued a notice to the respondents and directed them to file counter affidavits. On 18 October 2019, the High Court, noting the apprehension that the investigation was being carried out by a Deputy Superintendent of Police while the accused was a senior minister, directed Ms. Ponni, IPS, Superintendent of Police, to conduct the preliminary inquiry. The progress of the inquiry was to be monitored by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

On 16 December 2019, Ms. Ponni submitted her final report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Subsequently, on 17 February 2020, the State Government filed an application stating that after following all due process, it had accepted the report, which concluded that no cognizable offense had been made out. The State requested the writ petition to be disposed of as infructuous. However, the High Court did not dispose of the matter, and instead, directed the decision taken by the Vigilance Commission to be submitted in a sealed cover.

Later, on 19 July 2021, the State Government, relying on a CAG report, recanted its earlier position and submitted that it would investigate the matter further. The High Court, without examining the preliminary inquiry report, directed the State to proceed with the investigation. The High Court subsequently dismissed the appellant’s application for a copy of the preliminary inquiry report and closed the writ petition on 08 November 2021.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily discusses the application of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the supply of documents to the accused. It states:

“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.—In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of a specified portion thereof, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.”

The Court also refers to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, emphasizing that prosecution by the State should be consistent with the right to a fair trial.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no valid reason for not disclosing the preliminary inquiry report, as the State had not claimed any privilege over the documents.
• The appellant contended that the State’s reliance on the CAG reports was misplaced, as these reports did not disclose any criminal activity.
• It was argued that an FIR could not be lodged solely based on a CAG report.
• The appellant should have been given an opportunity to counter the allegations before the FIR was registered.
• The appellant submitted that the case was a result of political vendetta, where a change in the political regime led to the State recanting its initial position to abuse the process against the appellant.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that there is no provision of law that mandates the disclosure of a preliminary inquiry report before the stage contemplated under Section 207 of the CrPC.
• The State contended that the FIR was filed based on a fresh inquiry conducted in light of the CAG report and not solely based on the preliminary inquiry report.
• The State submitted that the accused would be given all the relied upon documents at the time of framing charges, where he can take appropriate legal recourse.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case, where the FIR was a direct result of judicial intervention and a reversal of the State’s initial stance, thereby necessitating the disclosure of the preliminary inquiry report to uphold the principles of natural justice.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to the preliminary inquiry report in the present facts and circumstances.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authority:

• In Re: Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2021) 10 SCC 598 – Supreme Court of India. The State relied on this case to argue that an accused is entitled to seek documents only in terms of Section 207 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from this authority, stating that the mandate of Section 207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the appellant-accused as well as to the principles of natural justice.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Deals with the supply of documents to the accused. The Court held that the mandate of this section cannot be applied rigidly in the present case.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished In Re: Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2021) 10 SCC 598, stating that the facts of the present case warranted a departure from the strict interpretation of Section 207 CrPC.
• The Court interpreted Section 207 of the CrPC flexibly, holding that its mandate cannot be applied rigidly in the present case.
• The Court used Article 21 of the Constitution of India to emphasize that the prosecution by the State should be consistent with the right to a fair trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure a fair trial and uphold the principles of natural justice. The court was particularly concerned about the following:

• The High Court’s failure to consider the preliminary inquiry report, which had initially exonerated the appellant.
• The State’s abrupt change of stance, which was seen as a potential abuse of process.
• The need to balance the State’s power to investigate with the individual’s right to a transparent legal process.
• The specific circumstances of the case where the FIR was a direct result of judicial intervention and a reversal of the State’s initial stance.

The court emphasized that the prosecution by the State should be consistent with the right to a fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the State had not pleaded any specific privilege that would bar the disclosure of the preliminary inquiry report.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was more influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the State’s change of position and the High Court’s failure to review the preliminary report, than by purely legal considerations. The court’s emphasis on the specific facts of the case highlights the importance of context in judicial decision-making.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in not taking the matter to its logical conclusion. The High Court had ordered a preliminary inquiry and obtained a report, but failed to even peruse the said report. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State Government. The Court also observed that the State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. When the State Government changed its stand, the High Court neither provided the appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the material that had exonerated him initially.

The Court distinguished the present case from the general rule where an accused is entitled to access the report only after the Magistrate takes cognizance in terms of Section 207 of the CrPC. The Court held that in the present case, the mandate of Section 207 of CrPC cannot be read as a provision etched in stone to cause serious violation of the rights of the appellant-accused as well as to the principles of natural justice.

The Court held that the prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the State had not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation. Therefore, there was no reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover.

The Supreme Court observed, “It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.” The Court also noted, “When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover.” The Court further stated, “Viewed from a different angle, it must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court did not have any dissenting opinions. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• A preliminary inquiry report must be disclosed to the accused if it is relevant to the case, especially when the State has changed its stance after initially accepting the report.
• The principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution are paramount and cannot be compromised.
• The State cannot arbitrarily change its position in a case without providing a reasonable justification and an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.
• Courts must ensure that the process of investigation and prosecution is fair and transparent.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The High Court was directed to supply a copy of the preliminary inquiry report submitted by Ms. R. Ponni, Superintendent of Police, along with other relevant documents, to the appellant.
2. Writ Petition No. 34845 of 2018 and Crl.O.P. No. 23428 of 2018 were restored on the file of the High Court of Madras.
3. The High Court was directed to dispose of the cases on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made by the Supreme Court.
4. The appellant was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the High Court regarding the quashing of the FIR.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in specific circumstances where the State changes its position after initially accepting a preliminary inquiry report, the accused is entitled to a copy of that report before the stage contemplated under Section 207 of the CrPC. This decision clarifies that the mandate of Section 207 is not absolute and can be relaxed to uphold the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case expands the scope of disclosure in criminal proceedings, especially in cases where the State’s actions raise concerns about fairness and transparency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in S.P. Velumani vs. Arappor Iyakkan is a significant ruling that underscores the importance of fairness and transparency in criminal proceedings. The Court’s decision to direct the disclosure of the preliminary inquiry report, despite the stage of the proceedings, highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights against potential abuse of power by the state. This case serves as a reminder that the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial are paramount and must be upheld at all stages of the legal process.