IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 382 OF 2014PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ..… THE PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA &ORS ..… THE RESPONDENTS

SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES AND QUERIES

ABOUT CPIL RAISED BY THE HON’BLE COURT

1. In view of certain observations and questions raised by the Court at the

hearing on 12.01.2016 of the above petition, it is essential to clarify

matters and present to the Court full and correct facts. It is respectfully

requested that the following submissions be taken into consideration.

PILs and the Indian Vision

2. This Hon’ble Court is well aware of the extensive public interest litigation

done by CPIL and is cognizant of the huge impact of its landmark

decisions in the matters agitated by CPIL. In not one of the CPIL matters

has this Hon’ble Court questioned the bona fides of CPIL. In not even a

single CPIL matter has this Court found the petitions of CPIL motivated. In

not even one of the cases did the Court find CPIL acting on behalf of a

party having a vested interest.

3. The great renown and reputation enjoyed by the Indian Judiciary owes

immensely to the development and expansion of public interest jurisdiction

by the past visionary judges of the Supreme Court.This development and

expansion owes a great debt to the Indian media which has championed

the cause of underprivileged, and has exposed mis-governance and

corruption. CPIL has been in the forefront of this movement. In recent

years, it has secured from this Hon’ble Court many a landmark decision,

e.g. the delineation of the concept of institutional integrity in the CVC case,

and the development of a framework for allocation of national resources in

accordance with the Constitutional principles of trusteeship and equity

inthe 2G scam case.These decisions have strengthened the institutions of

governance and greatly advanced the cause of probity in public life. In the

2G scam case, the detriment caused to the public exchequer by reason of

corruption has in a large measure been redressed, thanks to the auctions

under the directions of the Supreme Court.

4. These events have emboldened certain sections of the media, particularly

the Reliance Group media entities, to carry inaccurate and biased reports

designed to impair the credibility of CPIL. Firstpost.com, which is

admittedly owned by Reliance, in a report dated 13.01.2016 titled as “CJI

Thakur takes Prashant Bhushan's 'proxy interest litigation' head on”

wrongly stated as under: “Bhushan said a committee comprising senior

counsel Fali Nariman, Anil Divan,Kamini Jaiswal, Shanti Bhushan and

himself scrutinises any PIL before it is filed”. This is not a correct reporting

of events which occurred in theCourt. The factual position has been

communicated by ShriPrashant Bhushan to Firstpost.comas follows.

“The EditorFirstpost.Com

 In the report published on your website on 12.01.2016, you have reported the observations made by the Chief Justice of India made during the hearing of petition filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) against the grant of voice telephony to Reliance on 4G spectrum at 2001 price. I was the advocate for CPIL in the said petition wherein CJI raised certain queries regarding the functioning of CPIL. In response to the said queries, I had explained the mechanism and system followed by CPIL for deciding on the PILs that are to be filed in court. I had stated that there is a sub-committee of 5 advocates: Mr. Anil Divan, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and myself who decides on the PILs to be filed by the society. I had also mentioned the names of certain senior advocates like Mr. Fali S Nariman who are the founding members of CPIL and are also part of its governing body. Your paper has misreported the court proceedings and has stated that Mr. Nariman is part of the committee which decides on filing of PILs. That is not what I had said and it not correct. The Governing Council of CPIL of which Mr. Nariman is a member has authorized the sub-committee to decide on the PILs to be filed. In the meeting dated 4/1/13 attended and signed by 11 members of the governing Council including Mr. Nariman, it was resolved:

That we hereby resolve that in accordance with Rule 4 (b) (1) of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, we continue and appoint the same Sub-Committee of the following members which was appointed on 4/5/03 to decide the petitions that will be filed on behalf of the Society in any court of the country.

1. Mr. Anil Divan

2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan

3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves

4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal

5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan

We also reaffirm and continue the appointment of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal as Secretary of the Society who is authorized to sign the Vakalatnama and affidavits on behalf of the Society. She can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid subcommittee either telephonically or by emails. We further confirm and resolve to authorize Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant Bhushan to decide whom to engage for appearing in and arguing cases before the courts, in consultation with the President, Mr. Anil Divan. We confirm and ratify all acts done by them in filing and pursuit of PILs filed by them on behalf of the society.”Mr Nariman has not been a member of the sub-committee and therefore he had not scrutinized the petition filed against Reliance. Moreover, I had never stated that he had done so. However your incorrect reporting has caused serious confusion and damage to the reputation of CPIL and myself.Kindly carry this clarification on your website as prominently as your news report.

 Prashant Bhushan”

5. ShriDhananjayMahapatra of the Times of India has clarified in an email

dated 15.01.2016 addressed to Shri Prashant Bhushan as under:

“Prashant Bhai,

We have never said in our January 14th report that Nariman was

part of the committee which scrutinizes the PILs. We had just said

that Nariman was part of the founding members of the CPIL.

The next day’s report was based on a letter received from

Nariman’s office.

Dhananjay. “

6. Mail Today has issued a clarification on 17.01.2016 which is as under:

“In the report “Bhushan’s PIL draws CJI’s wrath’ (January 13), it was

wrongly mentioned that noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan had told the

Supreme Court that senior lawyer Fali S Nariman was part of the sub-

committee which decides on PILs to be filed by NGO Centre for Public

Interest Litigation (CPIL). It is made clear that Nariman, a founder member

of the CPIL is only a member of its governing council which has authorized

a sub-committee to decide on the PILs to be filed. Nariman is not part of

the panel which vets the PILs. He also did not scrutinize the petition

against Reliance which was being heard by the Supreme Court. We regret

the error.”

7. It was the Mail Today’s report which ShriFali Nariman had cited in his

letter to the Registrar General dated 14.01.2016 stating that he was not

involved in vetting the PILs filed by CPIL. In view of the confusion created

due to wrong reporting,Shri Nariman has now resigned from CPIL.

8. As clarified in detail hereinafter, Shri Fali Nariman was not a member of

the sub-committee which decides on filing of PILs, but he wasa founder

member and was a member of the governing body of CPIL. It is hereby

affirmed that any impression that Shri Nariman had scrutinized the

petitions filed by CPIL, including the present petition, is incorrect.

9. In the light of these developments, at an urgent meeting of the CPIL’s

governing body, the following resolution was passed on 15.01.2016:

“That the Governing Body of CPIL met today to take stock of certain

observations made by the Hon’ble CJI in 4G case (WPC 382 of 2014) on

12.01.2016 which were widely reported in the media.

That the governing body decided that CPIL must place its submissions

before the court in response to the said observations by the Hon’ble CJI.

That the submissions would be finalized by the Sub-Committee which is

already in place for deciding the PILs to be filed by CPIL.”

10. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court

to file these submissions to address the queries concerning the

background of the petitioner, the system followed by the Petitioner in filing

PILs, the scrutiny of the information received and other related issues.

About the petitioner

11. CPIL was established as a registered society by its founder President,

Late Shri V M Tarkunde.It was registered on 19.06.1984.The object of the

visionary Justice V M Tarkunde was to put in place with the help of public

spirited lawyers a structure which would give voice to the voiceless,enable

them to enjoy access to justice, and take up issues involving serious

public interest before the Court.Underlying this initiative was the conviction

that most citizens/individuals would not have the energy, financial

resources, time and opportunity to assert their collective rights, especially

when confronted by vested interests. Many would be intimidated by

powerful lobbies and afraid of being victimized. They would lack the

courage to come out openly against wielders of power and authority.

The aims and objects for which the Society was established include:

“To carry out research into the area of public interest

litigation in India and also to undertake/support such litigation

with a view to ascertain its proper scope and ambit and the

precautions to be taken in order that it may promote public

interest and may not be counter-productive;

To provide assistance, legal and monetary, in the matter of

filing and conducting public interest litigation in different

Courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court and the Delhi

High Court;

To popularize public interest litigation as a means of

promoting public welfare, particularly of the poor and the

needy;”

12. The settled practice adopted by CPIL is as under:

ShriPrashant Bhushan with the assistance of his juniors and after

discussions with Ms. Kamini Jaiswal looks into and scrutinizes carefully

the materials on which a potential PIL is to be drafted. If the material

comes from a doubtful source, it is examined with suspicion and utmost

care. On the basis of the quality of the material, e.g. CAG reports,

documents obtained under RTI, or supplied by whistleblowers, journalists

or others, a considered decision is taken to go ahead or not with the

petition. The majority of the litigation proposals coming to CPIL are

rejected, sinceit is felt that the material is doubtful, or the matter does not

raise a major issue of public importance. In fact, Shri Prashant Bhushan

and at least three of his juniors are spending the bulk of their time in

scrutinizing PIL proposals and the material which comes with

them.Thereafter, the members of the sub-committee which decides

whether to file the PIL or not, are consulted personally or on

telephone/email and accordingly the proposed PIL is either filed or

dropped. This practice has been approved and ratified by the Resolution

dated 04.01.2013which has been filed in this Hon’ble Court through

affidavit dated 09.01.2013 in WPC 505/2012, titled as CPIL v. UOI and

Ors. (re. RAW, IB matter). The said resolution specifically states that “She

(i.e. Kamini Jaiswal) can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid

sub-committee either telephonically or by emails.”

13. In the petitions filed by CPIL, affidavits in support have mainly been filed

by the General Secretary. This position has been held byShriAshok Panda

and MsKamini Jaiswal. In fact, it is settled practice of this Hon’ble Court

that PILs may be entertained on mere letters, press reports,suomotu, etc.

on the basis of the credibility and quality of the information and the

standing of the petitioner. CPIL states that in the present case no material has been received from any business rival or competitor. CPIL has adhered to and stands by the practice of filing properly

documented petitions supported by the affidavit of the Secretaryin

accordance with the settled practice ratified by the Resolution dated

04.01.2013.

14. It needs to be pointed out that it is settled law that it is not as if petitions

filed by political rivals or interested individuals would be automatically

rejected, but it is the quality of the material, evidence and nature of the

controversy which triggers and invites the interest of the court in

entertaining a PIL. In this connection, the following authority may be cited:

VishwanathChaturvedi v. UOI (2007) 4 SCC 380 at Pg 394-395,

Extracts of para 37 and 39:

“37. The ultimate test, in our view, therefore is whether the allegations

have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the

threshold because a political opponent of a person with political

differences raises an allegation of commission of offence…

39. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the

PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner’s interest. In our view, it is

wrong in law for the court to judge the petitioner’s interest without

looking into the subject-matter of his complaint and if the petitioner

shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing

the PIL.”

15. It may be mentioned that in Vineet Narain vs. UOI (Jain Hawala case)

reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226, the petitioners were Vineet Narain (a

journalist), Rajinder Puri (a Journalist and Cartoonist), Kamini Jaiswal and

Prashant Bhushan. The petition relied upon photocopies of the Jain

diaries which prima facie implicated powerful individuals and averred that

they were in possession of CBI. It was an allegation and no source was

disclosed. Yet notice was issued to CBI which was forced to admit the

existence and contents of the Jain diaries. It was on the strength of the

existence and content of the diaries seized by the CBI that the whole

litigation went forward. Eventually,this Hon’ble Court established

standards, norms and principles of good governance and public probity

which have been widely followed.

16. The Governing Body of the society in a meeting held on 05.10.1996 had

constituted a sub-committee of five members for deciding the causes to be

taken up and their names were as follows:

(i) Late Mr. V. M. Tarkunde

(ii) Mr. Anil B Divan

(iii) Mr. Shanti Bhushan

(iv) Mr. Rajinder Sachar

(v) Late Mr. H. D. Shourie.

17. The aforementioned sub-committee was re-constituted in the meeting of

the Governing Body held on 04.05.2003. The members of the sub-

committee to decide about issues/cases were as follows:

1. Mr. Anil Divan (President of CPIL)

2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan

3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves

4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary of CPIL)

5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan

18. In WPC 505 of 2012 filed by CPIL seeking accountability of intelligence

agencies, this Hon’ble Court had directed the petitioner to place an

authorization on behalf of the society for filing the petition. Hence,

ameeting of the governing body of CPIL was convened on 04.01.2013 in

which following resolution was passed:

“That we hereby resolve that in accordance with Rule 4 (b) (1) of

the Rules and Regulations of the Society, we continue and appoint the same Sub-Committee of the following members which was appointed on 4/5/03 to decide the petitions that will be filed on behalf of the Society in any court of the country.1. Mr. Anil Divan

2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan

3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves

4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal

5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan

We also reaffirm and continue the appointment of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal as Secretary of the Society who is authorized to sign the Vakalatnama and affidavits on behalf of the Society. She can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid subcommittee either telephonically or by emails. We further confirm and resolve to authorize Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant Bhushan to decide whom to engage for appearing in and arguing cases before the courts, in consultation with the President, Mr. Anil Divan. We confirm and ratify all acts done by them in filing and pursuit of PILs filed by them on behalf of the society. In particular, we approve & ratify the filing of writ

petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court (W.P.C. 505/2012) and the

contents of the said petition which deals with the accountability of

the intelligence agencies of the Government (i.e. RAW, IB &

NTRO).”

A photocopy of the resolution dated 04.01.2013 is annexed hereto as

Annexure A(Page __________).The members who signed this

resolution included:

a) Mr. Anil B Divan (President)

b) Mr. Rajinder Sachar

c) Mr. Fali S Nariman

d) Mr. Shanti Bhushan

e) Mr. Colin Gonsalves

f) Mr. Prashant Bhushan

g) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary)

h) Mr. Ashok Panda

i) Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal

j) Late Admiral R H Tahiliani

k) Mr. AnoopSaraya

19. CPIL had filed an application for the removal of the then CBI Director

from the 2G case (IA 73 filed in CA 10660 of 2010) in which a copy of the

entry register of the residence of the CBI Director was filed. This Hon’ble

Court vide order dated 15.09.2014 directed as under“In our opinion,

before we pass any order on the affidavit at the first instance, we request

Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel to disclose the source of his

information to us which has formed the basis of the averments and

allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The information

that will be disclosed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel shall be

kept in a sealed cover and to be opened by this Court only.”

20. A governing body meeting of CPIL was convened on 17.09.2014 to

discuss the course of action in which it was unanimously resolved that

CPIL would not disclose the name of the source. The resolution inter-alia

states: “CPIL continuously receives important information and documents

from a large number of sources who wish to keep their identity secret. Any

disclosure of identity in one case is likely to deter sources in other cases.

Therefore, the identity of the source can be revealed only if the person

concerned agrees in writing to such a disclosure.”A copy of the resolution

passed by governing body of CPIL dated 17.09.2014 is annexed as

Annexure B(Pg_________). Thereafter, this Hon’ble Court, vide order

dated 20.11.2014, recalled its earlier order dated 15.09.2014 and allowed

the application filed by CPIL. The relevant part of the said order dated

20.11.2014 passed in CA 10660/2010 reads thus: “(i) We recall our earlier

order passed on 15.09.2014 so far as it relates to I.A. No.73 of 2014. (ii)

We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to interfere in the

investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G spectrum

allocation that is carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the

case.”

21. The role played by the petitioner CPIL was recognized and acknowledged

by this Hon’ble Court in the 2G scam case while cancelling the licenses.

This Hon’ble Court in the judgment of Centre for Public Interest Litigation

&Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1 stated:

“Before concluding, we consider it imperative to observe that but for the vigilance of some enlightened citizens who held important constitutional and other positions and discharged their duties in larger public interest and Non GovernmentalOrganisations who have been constantly fighting for clean governance and accountability of the constitutional institutions, unsuspecting citizens and the Nation

would never have known how the scarce natural resource spared by Army

has been grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been

able to manipulate the system. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed

in the following terms: The licences granted to the private respondents on

or after 10.1.2008 pursuant to two press releases issued on 10.1.2008

and subsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees are declared

illegal and are quashed.”

Source of information/documents

22. The offices of Shri Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal generally

view documents coming from non-independent sources with great care,

but, if the information appears credible and shows evidence of serious

harm to public interest which needs intervention by the Court, then the

same isappropriately used in the PIL. This is done after a dispassionate

and objective analysis about its credibility.

23. Speaking generally in respect of PILs, if information coming from

interested persons, having important bearing on public interest, were left

to be litigated by those persons, there would be serious detriment to public

interest on account of the following:

a) lack of expertise and due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings,

b) premature withdrawal of the petition in case the petitioner has been

won over and thus subverting the public interest issue,

c) the risk of summary dismissal by the court on the ground that he is

trying to promote his personal interest.

Moreover, most people who have to deal with the government are

reluctant to go to court against the government as they may be adversely

affected in their dealings with the government in future. They are also

apprehensive about intimidation, reprisal and violence.

24. CPIL was formed precisely for the purpose of taking up PILs in an

organized manner purely in public interest. Over the years, CPIL has

established its credentials as a genuine public interest organization by dint

of an array of PILs filed before this Hon’ble Court and before the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi.

25. CPIL has not solicited any donations.The lawyers who pursue cases for

CPIL do it pro bono. Out of pocket expenses, like court fees, photocopying

and typing charges, are defrayed from the contributions made by the

members.The junior advocates who assist in filing PILs work in the

chambers of Shri Prashant Bhushan or Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and are

remunerated by them personally. They are not paid out of CPIL’s funds.

26. Some of the important PILs filed so far by the CPIL are recapitulated

below..

S.No. PIL Name Summary Status1. CPIL and ors vs

Union of India &Ors (CA 10660 of 2010)

Petition sought court monitored investigation into the 2G spectrum allocation scam

This Hon’ble Court is monitoring the 2G investigations for the last 5 years and had also directed the then CBI Director to recuse himself from the case vide order dated 20.11.2014

2. CPIL and ors vs Union of India &Ors (WPC 423 of 2010)

Petition sought cancellation of 2G spectrum allocation and 122 telecom licenses awarded in 2008

This Hon’ble Court cancelled the entire allocation of 2G spectrum and 122 telecom licenses, and directed fresh auction vide its judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1

3. CPIL and Anr.vs Union of India &Anr (WPC 348 of 2010)

Petition sought setting aside the appointment of the then CVC on the ground of appointee’s lack of integrity

This Hon’ble Court quashed the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and laid down an important legal principle of “institutional integrity” vide its judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1

4. CPIL vs Union of India (WPC 16 of 2011)

Petition sought that all intercepted conversations of Ms. NiiraRadia be put in public domain since they show criminality, influence of corporates in formulating public policies

This Hon’ble Court by an interim order directed the CBI to conduct preliminary inquiries on the basis of the petition filed by the CPIL. The petition is pending.

5. CPIL v Registrar This petition challenged This Hon’ble Court had

General of the High Court of Delhi, WP (C) 514/2015

the entire selection process and evaluation method adopted in Main (Written) Examination of Delhi Judicial Service, 2014 (DJS) on the grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

ordered for re-evaluation of the papers of those candidates who were successful in preliminary examination but were not called for interview. The petition is pending.

6. CPIL V. UOI &orsCWP No. 171 of 2003

This petition was filed before this Hon’ble Court in 2003 challenging the legality of the Government’s decision to disinvest and thus privatize the Govt. Oil Companies namely HPCL and BPCL without seeking the approval from the Parliament and also without amending the Parliamentary enactments by which these companies had been nationalized.

Disinvestment was disallowed by this Hon’ble Court without parliament approval. Judgment reported as(2003) 7 SCC 532

7. CPIL V. Housing and Urban Development Corporation &ors

CWP No. 573 of 2003

This petition has been filed to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court the action of the Officials of HUDCO in arbitrarily granting loans for political and extraneous considerations without going in to the merit of each case and even ignoring prescribed / established procedures, appraisal norms and financial prudence including the advice of Board members.

This Hon’ble Court had referred the matter to the CVC for investigation and the CVC had submitted detailed report. Petition is Pending

8. CWP No. 21of2004, Titled as CPIL V. UOI &ors

This petition was filed before this Hon’ble Courtin 2004 challengingtheconstitutionalityofSubSection (c)ofSection 26 of theCentralVigilanceCommissionAct, 2003 introducingSection 6AtoDelhiSpecialPoliceEstablishmentAct, 1946, which requires prior approvalof the designated authority to initiate the

This matter had been referred to the Constitution bench.The Petition was thereafter allowed by the Constitution Bench. Section 6A was declared ultra vires.Reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682

inquiry or investigation against certain officers of the Government and Public Sector Undertakings (PSU’s), nationalised banks etc above a certain level.

9. CPIL V. UOI &orsCWP No. 180 of 2004

Thispetitionhas beenfiledin theSupremeCourtin2004 tochallengetheconstitutionalityofthePresidentialOrder 1950 accordingtowhichonlythemembers of scheduledcastesfromHindu,BuddhistandSikhreligionsarebenefitted and the converts from Christianity/Islam are denied the benefits.

The matter was referred by the Government to Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission in 2005. The Commission has submitted its report before this Hon’ble Court supporting the Petitioner’s prayers. The matter is still Pending

10. CPIL V. UOICWPNo. 197 Of 2004

This petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 2004 seeking directions and guidelines to check the misuse of thousands of crores of public funds which is taking place at the hands of the Central government, the State Governments, and the agencies and corporations controlled by them and by other public bodies, by means of advertisements issued in the print and electronic media which are being used to project personalities, political parties and particular governments.

Petition has been allowed with specific directions to the Government for stopping misuse of public funds on such advertisements. Reported as (2015) 7 SCC 1

11. CPILV.UOI&orsCWPNo. 681 Of 2004

This petition was regarding harmful effects of various chemical additives which are deliberately added by the soft drink manufacturers in the soft drinks. In this Petition directions were sought for proper regulation of the ingredients of the soft drinks, their full disclosures and also for

Disposed of with certain directions to the Food and Safety Authority of India. Reported as (2013) 16 SCC 279. This Hon’ble Court also directed that only independent experts be appointed to food safety authority.

proper regulation of their advertisements.

12. CivilWrit Petition 387/2005, CPIL V. UOI &Ors.

This Petition was filed to challenge the appointment of Neera Yadav astheChiefSecretaryofUttarPradeshdespitetherebeingseveralcorruptioncasespendingagainsther.

She was ordered to be removed from the post of the Chief Secretary by this Hon’ble Court vide judgment reported in (2005) 8 SCC 202.

13. CWP 6426/2006, CPIL &ors. Vs. UOI &ors.

This Petition was filed for proper and complete investigation into the allegation of the involvement of the middlemen and payment of bribes in the procurement of Scorpene submarines.

The Hon’ble High Court had directed the CBI to register PE. The CBI, pursuant to the said direction, filed its report in a sealed cover. The HC, on the basis of the said PE report but without sharing the same with the Petitioner, disposed of the writ petition.

14. CPIL v UOI, WP (C) 505 of 2012

The petition is for accountability of the government’s three intelligence agencies namely Intelligence Bureau(IB), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and National TechnicalResearch Organisation (NTRO) which have been created by simply executive orders without any statutory support. The petition seeks setting up of a proper mechanism, following the modelsof other democratic countries, so that accountability of thesegovernment’scould be ensured.

This Hon’ble Court has issued notice. The case is Pending.

15. CPIL v Union of India &ors. CWP No. 991/2013

The Petition has sought a thorough and independent investigation into allegations of various misdemeanours and breach of laws by M/s. Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd and their various network Audit Firms operating in India sharing the brand name of Pwc

This Hon’ble Court has issued notice. The matter is Pending

and providing audit and advisory services.

16. CPIL v UOI, CWP 1815 of 2015

This writ petition has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking direction for expeditious investigation of corruption cases in AIIMS by the CBI, as well seeking disciplinary proceedings that were recommended by the former CVO, AIIMS.

The case is Pending. CVC and CBI have pursuant to the direction of the Court filed their respective status reports.

17. CPIL v Chairman Rajya Sabha and orsCWP No. 4000 of 2015

The petition has sought to challenge the validity of Clause 6 A of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat (Methods of Recruitment and Qualifications for Appointment) Order, 2009 (hereinafter referred as Order, 2009)

Pending before the Delhi High Court

18. CPIL vs Union of India WP (C) 2932/2012

Petition sought independent review of Kashmir railway alignment, inter-alia, on the ground of safety and survivability of the present alignment.

Delhi High Court allowed the petition and directed the Central Government to constitute an expert committee to review the Kashmir railway alignment.The expert committee headed by Mr. E Sreedharanin its report accepted that the present Kashmir Railway alignment is faulty, unsafe and the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioner is better in virtually all respects

19. CPIL vs. Union of India WP (C) 8780/2009& 6813/2010

The Petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to make reference under Section 7 (1) of the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for holding an inquiry against Mr. Baljit Singh Lalli. Despite the fact that the CVC had clearly indicted the said CEO of the Prasar Bharti Board for various

The Hon’ble High Court ordered CVC probe which found him guilty. This led to the Government initiating the process for his removal.

financial irregularities and misuse of his office, the govt. was not taking any consequent action.

20. CPIL Vs. Union of India CWP 4003/1995 & 4430/1995

PIL was filed seeking cancellation of arbitrary allotment of petrol pumps through the Oil Selection Boards.

The Hon’ble High Court cancelled several allotments against which individual allottees approached this Hon’ble Court. Matters are still pending

21. CPIL Vs. Union of India WP (C) No. 355 of 2011

The Petition was filed seeking a writ of quo warranto against the then CEO & MD of IFCI to remove him from the post of CEO & MD of IFCI as his appointment was illegal; and seeking investigation into various allegations of administrative and financial irregularities in IFCI and direction to direct UOI to exercise its control over the IFCI

During the pendency of the petition, then CEO and MD was forced toresign by the Government from the post of the CMD, IFCI. Pursuant to the petition, the Government started exercising its control over the IFCI. Case is Pending.

22. CPIL vs UOI &Ors SLP (C) 25545 of 2012

Petition seeks investigation by a SIT/CBI into the purchase of over 100 aircrafts by Air India causing enormous loss to the national carrier.

This Hon’ble Court has issued notice and the matter is pending.

1) Anil B Divan (President, CPIL)

2) Shanti Bhushan

3) Colin Gonsalves

4) Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary, CPIL)

5) Prashant Bhushan

Dated 19.01.2016

New Delh