A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case involves an extraordinary appellate review by the Supreme Court addressing procedural issues in judicial orders affecting administrative and investigative functions. The petitioner, Sanjay Kundu, challenged the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order directing his transfer from the position of Director General of Police (DGP). This order arose from a suo motu writ petition initiated on an email complaint alleging misuse of Kundu’s position to intimidate the complainant for a private civil dispute. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s ex parte order procedurally flawed, emphasizing audi alteram partem and setting aside the High Court’s directive for Kundu’s transfer. However, it upheld the High Court’s recommendation for constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT), underscoring fair procedural compliance in criminal investigations.

Keywords: Administration of Justice, Procedural Fairness, Audi Alteram Partem, SIT, Judicial Review

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
• Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 550-551 of 2024
• Judgment Date: January 12, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J. B. Pardiwala; Manoj Misra, JJ.
• Author: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI
• Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 442; 2024 INSC 43
• Legal Provisions Involved: Principles of Natural Justice, Audi Alteram Partem, Criminal Procedural Law
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• Related Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The genesis of this case lies in allegations by a complainant, Nishant Kumar Sharma, who, via email to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, claimed intimidation and misuse of office by DGP Sanjay Kundu. The High Court, invoking suo motu powers, ordered Kundu’s transfer to ensure unbiased investigation, despite not involving him in the proceedings. Following an unsuccessful recall application by Kundu, the Supreme Court was approached to evaluate the procedural and jurisdictional propriety of the High Court’s directives. This case brings into focus audi alteram partem in judicial directives impacting administrative control, maintaining procedural fairness even in matters implicating public officials.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Initiation of High Court Proceedings: Nishant Kumar Sharma’s complaint claimed harassment by Kundu, allegedly to influence a private business dispute. His complaint, alleging threats and police inaction on multiple FIRs, led to a suo motu criminal writ petition by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

2. High Court’s Ex Parte Order: On reviewing preliminary status reports indicating Kundu’s alleged interference, the High Court ordered Kundu’s transfer without involving him in the proceedings, emphasizing fair investigation.

3. Recall Petition and High Court Rejection: Kundu’s petition for recall was denied by the High Court, which instead directed the state to consider forming an SIT and maintaining security for the complainant, ultimately leading Kundu to seek Supreme Court intervention.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Procedural Justice and Audi Alteram Partem: Was the High Court’s ex parte directive affecting the petitioner’s position procedurally just and compliant with natural justice?
• Jurisdictional Overreach: Did the High Court’s intervention in administrative control over an officer of the executive branch exceed its jurisdiction?
• Necessity of Constituting an SIT: Was forming an SIT justified to ensure impartiality in investigations impacted by alleged conflicts of interest?

F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. Procedural Deficiency: Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi argued that the High Court’s order breached procedural fairness by not issuing notice to Kundu, violating audi alteram partem.

2. Jurisdictional Misstep: The High Court, in directing an executive officer’s transfer, overstepped its jurisdiction, usurping executive control without observing procedural safeguards.

3. Prejudice in Investigation: Rohatgi contended that Kundu’s involvement with the complainant’s case was incidental and arose from official duties, and that the High Court’s directives unduly prejudiced Kundu’s reputation and administrative position.

4. SIT Constitution Opposition: Although agreeable to impartial investigation, Kundu objected to the SIT proposal without statutory or legal basis, favoring instead an investigation by regular state agencies.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Necessity of High Court Intervention: The respondents maintained that Kundu’s alleged misuse of power in a private dispute justified the High Court’s intervention to safeguard impartiality in investigation.

2. Support for SIT Formation: The High Court’s recommendation for an SIT, consisting of higher-level officers insulated from Kundu’s influence, was warranted due to the severity of allegations.

3. Justification of Ex Parte Order: The respondents argued that the High Court’s decision was based on prima facie evidence of Kundu’s influence on local police, necessitating immediate corrective action without delay.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Procedural Fairness Requirement: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s ex parte order transferring Kundu as procedurally deficient and emphasized the importance of audi alteram partem in judicial decisions impacting individuals’ rights and positions.

2. Jurisdictional Error: The High Court overstepped by intruding into executive jurisdiction without providing Kundu a chance to contest the order, constituting a jurisdictional misstep.

3. SIT Formation Directive: While overturning Kundu’s transfer, the Supreme Court upheld the formation of an SIT to ensure impartiality in the investigation, underlining that SIT officers would not report to Kundu, thus preserving the investigation’s autonomy.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The Supreme Court, while refraining from commenting on allegations, stressed the necessity of judicious exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by lower courts, especially in administrative matters implicating individual officers without fair representation.

c. Guidelines

1. Respect for Audi Alteram Partem: The court reiterated that all judicial orders affecting individuals’ rights, positions, or reputations must adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem.

2. Formation of SIT for Sensitive Investigations: In cases involving public officials accused of conflict, courts may direct the formation of SITs to preserve impartiality, provided such orders respect procedural fairness.

3. Judicial Restraint in Administrative Transfers: Judicial interventions into executive transfers or postings should be sparingly exercised, keeping in mind statutory administrative hierarchies and procedural rights.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s obligation to uphold procedural justice, especially when executive powers or positions are affected. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of maintaining judicial restraint, particularly in matters implicating administrative control or executive decisions. The court’s endorsement of an SIT reflects a balanced approach, ensuring impartial investigation while respecting procedural propriety.

J) REFERENCES

1. Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, [2024] 1 S.C.R. 442, Supreme Court of India.
2. Principles of Audi Alteram Partem: Application in administrative justice, Constitutional Law.
3. Indian Penal Code – Relevant sections include Sections 299, 469, 499, and 505.
4. Indian Constitution – Procedural fairness under Article 21.