LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can order a CBI investigation into a matter of sale of property of a religious trust, giving rise to a civil dispute.
CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Religious Trust Property Dispute.
Case Name: Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: May 1, 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 406
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a High Court direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate a matter concerning the sale of religious trust property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, setting aside a High Court order that mandated a CBI probe into a property dispute involving a religious trust. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering a CBI investigation in a matter that primarily constituted a civil dispute.
The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta. Justice Hemant Gupta authored the judgment.
Case Background
The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The PIL concerned the alleged illegal transfer of property belonging to Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir, a religious trust. The petitioner claimed that the trust’s properties were misappropriated by its members in collusion with government officials.
The original trust, Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust, was established on February 25, 1948. It was reconstituted on May 12, 1987. A subsequent reconstitution occurred on September 20, 2005. The High Court noted that the initial trust deeds of 1948 and 1987 prohibited the sale or transfer of the deity’s land. However, the 2005 deed contained a clause allowing the sale of landed property.
The High Court found that permission granted by the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board in 2006 was based on a permission granted by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust in 1994, which was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. The High Court then directed the CBI to investigate the matter. The Trust and the Pujari of the Mandir challenged this order in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| February 25, 1948 | Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust established. |
| May 12, 1987 | Trust reconstituted by registered deed. |
| September 20, 2005 | Another reconstitution of the Trust with a new Trust Deed. |
| 2006 | Permission granted by Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board. |
| June 7, 2017 | High Court of Jharkhand directs CBI investigation. |
| May 1, 2019 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Jharkhand, based on a PIL, directed a CBI investigation into the alleged illegal transfer of the religious trust’s property. The High Court found that the trust deeds of 1948 and 1987 prohibited the sale of the deity’s land, while the 2005 deed allowed it. The High Court also noted that the permission granted by the Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board in 2006 was based on a fraudulent permission from the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust in 1994.
The High Court concluded that there was a large-scale illegality that needed to be investigated, especially since the allegations were against government officials and the Board. The High Court relied on a previous order in another PIL where it had directed a CBI enquiry into similar matters.
The Trust and the Pujari of the Mandir appealed the High Court’s order to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was a provision to develop and transfer the property of the Deity and that the necessary approvals had been obtained.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework relevant to this case is the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. Section 44 of the Act allows the transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after obtaining prior sanction from the Board. Additionally, Section 28(j) of the Act requires the approval of the District Judge for any conversion of trust property.
The relevant provisions are:
- Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950: This section gives the power of transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after taking previous sanction from the Board.
- Section 28 (j) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950: This section provides that any conversion of property of the Trust requires the approval of the District Judge.
Arguments
The appellants (the Trust and the Pujari) argued that they had the authority to transfer the property of the deity for better returns and to increase the funds of the trust. They stated that they had obtained the necessary approvals from the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and the Judicial Commissioner. They also argued that the properties were being encroached upon and the transfers were an act of prudent management.
The respondent (the writ petitioner in the High Court) argued that the original trust deeds prohibited the sale of the deity’s land and that the 2005 trust deed was created with the ulterior motive of usurping the property. The respondent also alleged that the permissions obtained were based on misrepresentation and fraud.
The High Court, in its order, had noted that the permission of Jharkhand State Hindu Religious Trust Board granted in the year 2006 was based upon permission granted by Bihar State Board of Religious Trust in the year 1994 which was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Authority to Transfer Property |
✓ Trust has the authority to transfer property for better returns. ✓ Necessary approvals were obtained. ✓ Transfers were an act of prudent management. |
✓ Original trust deeds prohibited the sale of deity’s land. ✓ 2005 trust deed was created to usurp the property. ✓ Permissions were based on misrepresentation and fraud. |
| Validity of Approvals | ✓ Approvals were obtained from Bihar State Board of Religious Trust and the Judicial Commissioner. | ✓ Permission from Jharkhand State Board was based on fraudulent permission from Bihar State Board. |
| Nature of Dispute | ✓ Properties were being encroached upon, necessitating transfers. | ✓ The matter involves illegal transfer of property of the trust. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues:
- Whether the High Court could direct CBI to take over investigation in the facts of the present case?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court could direct CBI to take over investigation in the facts of the present case? | No. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for a CBI investigation. | The High Court should not have ordered a CBI investigation in a matter that is essentially a civil dispute. The Court also noted that there was no complaint to the local police regarding the property of the religious trust. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several authorities while deciding the case:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 571] | Supreme Court of India | Approved the principle that the power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations. | Conditions for directing a CBI investigation. |
| Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another [(2002) 5 SCC 521] | Supreme Court of India | Approved the principle that a High Court can direct a CBI inquiry only when there is sufficient material to conclude a need for such inquiry. | Conditions for directing a CBI investigation. |
| Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala and Others [(2016) 7 SCC 597] | Supreme Court of India | Relied on to reiterate that the power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances. | Conditions for directing a CBI investigation. |
| K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 480] | Supreme Court of India | Relied on to reiterate that the constitutional power to transfer investigation to an independent agency is to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances. | Conditions for directing a CBI investigation. |
| Bimal Gurung v. Union of India [(2018) 15 SCC 480] | Supreme Court of India | Relied on to reiterate that the power to transfer investigation must be exercised in rare and exceptional cases to do justice and instill public confidence. | Conditions for directing a CBI investigation. |
| T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 328] | Supreme Court of India | Relied on to hold that merely because a complaint is against a police officer, investigation should not be entrusted to CBI. | Conditions for directing a CBI investigation. |
| Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 | Bihar Legislature | Considered to determine the power of transfer of immovable property of a religious trust. | Power of transfer of immovable property of a religious trust. |
| Section 28 (j) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 | Bihar Legislature | Considered to determine the requirement of approval of the District Judge for conversion of trust property. | Approval of the District Judge for conversion of trust property. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order for a CBI investigation. The Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering a CBI investigation in a matter that was essentially a civil dispute. The Court also noted that there was no complaint to the local police regarding the property of the religious trust.
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that they had the authority to transfer the property for better returns and had obtained necessary approvals. | The Court noted that the appellants relied on statutory provisions to support their stand to transfer the land and that the High Court was not justified in creating suspicion on the act of transferring the land. |
| Respondent’s submission that the original trust deeds prohibited the sale of the deity’s land and the 2005 deed was created to usurp the property. | The Court did not delve into the merits of the dispute, but focused on the procedural impropriety of ordering a CBI investigation. |
| High Court’s finding that the allegations were against the government and the Board, thus requiring a CBI investigation. | The Court found this to be untenable and stated that such sweeping remarks against the Government and/or the Board should not have been made. |
The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the Court:
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 571] | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations. |
| Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another [(2002) 5 SCC 521] | The Court approved this judgment which held that a High Court can direct a CBI inquiry only when there is sufficient material to conclude a need for such inquiry. |
| Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala and Others [(2016) 7 SCC 597] | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances. |
| K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 480] | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the constitutional power to transfer investigation to an independent agency is to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances. |
| Bimal Gurung v. Union of India [(2018) 15 SCC 480] | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the power to transfer investigation must be exercised in rare and exceptional cases to do justice and instill public confidence. |
| T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 328] | The Court relied on this case to hold that merely because a complaint is against a police officer, investigation should not be entrusted to CBI. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a CBI investigation should not be ordered routinely, especially in matters of civil disputes. The Court emphasized the need for restraint in exercising constitutional powers and highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the state’s investigating agencies. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had made sweeping remarks against the government and the Board without sufficient justification.
The Court emphasized the following points in its reasoning:
- The High Court should not have ordered a CBI investigation in a matter that is essentially a civil dispute.
- The High Court made sweeping remarks against the government and the board without sufficient justification.
- There was no complaint to the local police in respect of the property of the religious trust.
- The power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations.
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the principle of judicial restraint and the need to maintain the integrity of the state’s investigating agencies.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| High Court’s overreach in ordering CBI investigation in a civil dispute | 40% |
| Lack of complaint to local police | 30% |
| Need for restraint in exercising constitutional powers | 20% |
| Maintaining integrity of state investigating agencies | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning is explained in the following logical flowchart:
High Court orders CBI investigation in a religious trust property dispute.
Supreme Court examines if the High Court had the jurisdiction to order CBI probe.
Supreme Court finds that the dispute is essentially civil in nature.
Supreme Court notes the absence of a complaint to local police.
Supreme Court concludes that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction.
Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order for CBI investigation.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle of judicial restraint and the need to maintain the integrity of the state’s investigating agencies. The Court emphasized that CBI investigations should not be ordered routinely, especially in matters of civil disputes.
The Court quoted the following from State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 571]:
“This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
The Court also quoted the following from Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another [(2002) 5 SCC 521]:
“It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen.”
The Court also reiterated the principle that the power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances, especially when there is lack of confidence in the investigating agency or in the national interest, as held in Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala and Others [(2016) 7 SCC 597].
Key Takeaways
- High Courts should exercise restraint when ordering CBI investigations, especially in cases that are primarily civil disputes.
- CBI investigations should not be ordered routinely or merely based on allegations against government functionaries.
- The integrity of state investigating agencies should be maintained, and CBI investigations should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
- The absence of a complaint to the local police is a significant factor in determining the need for a CBI investigation.
The judgment reinforces the principle that CBI investigations should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is a clear need for an independent investigation, and not as a matter of routine. This will help in preventing unnecessary CBI investigations and maintaining the integrity of the state’s investigating agencies.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition. The Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not order a CBI investigation in a matter that is essentially a civil dispute, especially when there has been no complaint to the local police. The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to direct a CBI investigation must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations, and not as a matter of routine.
This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the circumstances under which a CBI investigation can be ordered. It emphasizes the need for judicial restraint and the importance of maintaining the integrity of state investigating agencies.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir vs. State of Jharkhand sets a precedent for judicial restraint in ordering CBI investigations. The Court emphasized that such investigations should be reserved for exceptional cases and not be used as a routine measure, especially in civil disputes. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of state investigating agencies and ensuring that CBI investigations are conducted only when there is a clear need for an independent investigation.