By Chandrika yenugupalli[1]
In the supreme court of India
| NAME OF THE CASE | State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors |
| CITATION | 1992 AIR 604 |
| BENCH/JUDGE | PANDIAN, S.R. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) |
| APPELLANT | STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. |
| RESPONDENT | CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ORS. |
| STATUTES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVED | Constitution of India, 1950, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES | Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154, 155,156, 157, 159,482 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Section 5 |
| DATE OF THE CASE | 21St NOVEMBER,1990 |
ABSTRACT
The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case stands as a significant judicial milestone in the Indian legal system, specifically addressing the issue of political corruption and the abuse of power. This case analysis aims to provide a concise summary of the case, its background, legal implications, and the impact it has had on the Indian jurisprudence.
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Bhajan Lal, a prominent political figure in Haryana, alleging various instances of corruption and misuse of his official position. The petitioner, the State of Haryana, sought a direction from the Supreme Court of India to investigate and prosecute Bhajan Lal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recognized the significance of combating political corruption and acknowledged the need for a legal framework to hold public officials accountable. Furthermore, the court laid down a set of guidelines, commonly known as the “Bhajan Lal guidelines,” to guide the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary in dealing with cases of political corruption. These guidelines provided a framework for assessing the veracity of corruption allegations, ensuring fair investigation and prosecution, and preventing misuse of power by political figures. This case analysis highlights the inherent powers of high court in quashing the FIR under section 482 of criminal procedure code.
INTRODUCTION
The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case is a landmark legal battle that has left an indelible impact on the Indian legal landscape, particularly in the realm of combating political corruption. This high-profile case delved into the allegations of corruption and abuse of power against Bhajan Lal, a prominent political figure in Haryana, shedding light on the intricate relationship between politics and corruption. The genesis of the case lies in the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the State of Haryana, accusing Bhajan Lal of various acts of corruption and misuse of his official position for personal gain. The case attracted widespread attention, not only due to the involvement of a prominent political personality but also due to the significance of addressing systemic corruption within the political domain.
The State of Haryana approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking directions to initiate investigations and prosecute Bhajan Lal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial authority in the country, recognized the gravity of political corruption and the urgent need to establish a legal framework to hold public officials accountable. In its judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged that political corruption posed a severe threat to the foundations of democracy and good governance. The court broadened the scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by allowing citizens to directly approach the court with evidence of corruption and abuse of power by political figures. This groundbreaking decision empowered individuals to actively engage in the fight against political corruption and seek justice through the judicial system.
The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case has had a far-reaching impact on the Indian legal framework concerning political corruption. It served as a catalyst for subsequent cases involving corruption charges against public officials and played a pivotal role in shaping anti-corruption laws and policies in the country. The case marked a paradigm shift, where the judiciary actively embraced its role as a guardian against political corruption and paved the way for a more transparent and accountable political system.
In the subsequent sections, we will delve deeper into the legal implications of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case, the significance of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, and the broader influence it has had on the Indian legal system’s approach to combatting political corruption.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Bhajan Lal, a prominent figure serving as the Union Minister of Environment and Forests, Devi Lal, who had been elected as the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana, and Dharam Pal, another key player in the political landscape. The circumstances leading up to the case were marked by deep-seated political rivalries and the emergence of criminal allegations against various individuals.
The animosity between Bhajan Lal and Devi Lal had been brewing for some time, and this acrimonious relationship played a pivotal role in the events that followed. Notably, during the same election, Respondent 2, Dharam Pal, had faced defeat at the hands of Smt. Jasma Devi, the wife of Bhajan Lal. In the wake of this electoral setback, Dharam Pal lodged a complaint with Chief Minister Devi Lal, leveling serious accusations against Bhajan Lal. The crux of his complaint centered on the allegation that Bhajan Lal had amassed an excessive amount of property and pecuniary resources, far exceeding what could be accounted for by his lawful means of income. In other words, Dharam Pal contended that Bhajan Lal’s accumulation of wealth was disproportionate and indicative of potential corruption.
In order to address this serious claim, the Special Officer on Duty in the Chief Minister’s secretariat promptly relayed the message to the Director General of Police, alerting him to the fact that the Chief Minister had requested appropriate action in response to the complaint. Consequently, the complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (SP) with instructions to take the necessary measures and provide a report on the matter. Following these directives, the SP instructed the Station House Officer (SHO) to register the case and conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations.
Subsequently, in November 1987, a case was formally filed against Bhajan Lal under sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These sections of the law pertain to offenses such as bribery, taking gratification other than legal remuneration, and the possession of disproportionate assets. The lodging of the First Information Report (FIR), a formal document that initiates a criminal investigation, was accompanied by its submission to the magistrate, signaling the commencement of the legal process.
Bhajan Lal, as the aggrieved party, pursued legal remedies by filing writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution before the High Court. Bhajan Lal’s plea sought the quashing of the ongoing proceedings in the case on the grounds that the allegations leveled against him did not constitute a cognizable offense, thereby negating the authority of the police to conduct an investigation.[2]
Upon careful consideration of the arguments put forth by both parties, the High Court rendered its judgment in favor of Bhajan Lal. The court concurred with Bhajan Lal’s contention that the allegations lacked the requisite elements to be classified as a cognizable offense, thereby supporting the notion that the police did not possess the authority to proceed with the investigation. To substantiate this ruling, the court referred to the precedent set by the case of Swapan Kumar Guha and the State of Bengal, which likely involved similar legal considerations.
In line with its decision to quash the registered FIR and halt the criminal proceedings, the High Court also imposed a substantial fine on respondent 2, Dharam Pal, in order to recover the costs incurred by Bhajan Lal in filing the writ petition. This action serves as a common practice in legal proceedings to ensure that the party found at fault bears the financial burden of the litigation process.
Following the judgment of the High Court, the appellants, who were dissatisfied with the outcome, sought recourse by approaching the Supreme Court. They exercised their right to seek special leave, requesting the Supreme Court to review and potentially overturn the ruling of the High Court. The Supreme Court, being the highest judicial authority in the country, possesses the jurisdiction to hear and decide such matters, thereby providing an avenue for further legal scrutiny and potential redress.
ISSUES
- Whether allegations against bhajan Lal constitute a cognizable offence?
- Whether police exceeded their jurisdiction in initiating the investigation?
- Whether the High Court’s decision to quash the First Information Report (FIR) and halt the criminal proceedings against Bhajan Lal was a justifiable action within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution?
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE
- The counsel for the appellant stated that Complainant alleges that Bhajan Lal, previously an ordinary man with no clear source of income before 1969, accumulated substantial wealth and property worth crores after assuming the positions of Chief Minister and Minister of the Central cabinet.
- The counsel further stated that the Complainant cites more than 20 instances of alleged corruption as evidence of these claims.
- It is argued by the counsel that the instances of corruption, although not publicly visible, collectively, or individually constitute a cognizable offense, justifying the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) as per Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- It is contended that the High Court exceeded its authority by quashing the FIR and interfering with the ongoing investigation.[3]
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
- The respondent’s counsel argues that the High Court’s judgment is well-reasoned and should not be questioned by the present court. Referring to the Swapan Kumar Guha case, it is asserted that courts generally refrain from interfering with ongoing criminal investigations.
- The counsel emphasizes that the High Court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings if it deems necessary, as supported by legal precedent.
- The counsel further highlights that it is claimed that the registration of the case against Bhajan Lal was motivated by personal and political animosity between Devi Lal and Bhajan Lal. This animosity allegedly arose after Devi Lal’s defeat in the 1978-82 general election against Bhajan Lal, where Devi Lal failed to become the Chief Minister of Haryana.
- It is argued that Dharam Pal’s complaint is defamatory and maliciously filed against Bhajan Lal.
- The defense contends that the investigation was conducted by the Station House Officer, which goes against Section 5(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to this section, only officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police or higher should handle such investigation.
RELATED PROVISIONS
- The Constitution of India 1949
Article 226_ Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause (2) of Article 32[4]
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
154. Information in cognizable cases.—(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:
1[Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376,
2[section 376A,section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that—(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 2 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.]
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.[5]
155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases. —(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable[6]
156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case. — (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.[7]
157. Procedure for investigation. — (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to
the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that—
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
1[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.]
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.[8]
159. Power to hold investigation or preliminary inquiry. —Such Magistrate, on receiving such report, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit, at once proceed, or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in this Code.[9]
482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. —Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.[10]
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty – (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct: —(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains on agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person; any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been; or to be, or to be likely to be “concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do, or
(d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
(2) Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.
(3) Whoever habitually commits: – (i) an offence punishable under section 162 or section 163 of the Indian Penal Code, or
(ii) an offence punishable under section 165 A of the Indian Penal Code, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year.
(3A) Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred to in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3B) Where a sentence of fine is imposed under sub -section (2) or subsection (3) the Court in fixing the ‘amount of line shall take into consideration. The amount or the value of the property if any, which the accused person has obtained by committing the offence or where the conviction is for an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1), the pecuniary resources or property referred to in that clause for which the accused person is unable to account satisfactorily.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force and nothing contained herein shall exempt any public servant from any proceeding which might apart from this section, be instituted against him.[11]
JUDGEMENT
The decision of the High Court to quash the First Information Report (FIR) is overturned, as it is deemed legally and factually unsustainable. However, the entire investigation conducted thus far, if any, is nullified due to the lack of valid legal authority vested in the third appellant (Station House Officer) to initiate and proceed with the investigation as stipulated under Section 5A (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The honorable supreme court referred to the cases P.V. Jagannath Rao & Ors. v. State of Orissa[12] & Ors. Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors.,[13] and stated that according to Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if any information is brought before an officer-in-charge of a police station regarding a cognizable offense, the officer is obligated to enter the substance of that information in the prescribed form and register a case based on it.
While a police officer is not authorized to investigate a non-cognizable offense, they can investigate a non-cognizable offense under the order of a Magistrate who has the power to try such cases or commit them for trial, as stated in Section 155(2) of the Code. However, this is subject to Section 155(3) of the Code. Additionally, the newly introduced Sub-section (4) to Section 155 specifies that if a case involves two offenses, one of which is cognizable, the entire case will be treated as a cognizable case, granting the police officer the same investigation powers as they have for a cognizable offense.
The essence of Sections 156, 157, and 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that if a police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of a cognizable offense, they must proceed with the investigation or direct their subordinate to do so. If the police officer determines that there are insufficient grounds for investigation, they have the authority to dispense with the investigation altogether. The domain of investigation of any cognizable offense lies exclusively with the investigating agencies, and the courts do not have the power to interfere or hinder the ongoing investigation as long as it adheres to the provisions related to investigation. Only when a police officer decides not to investigate an offense can the concerned Magistrate intervene and either direct an investigation or, if deemed appropriate, initiate a preliminary inquiry, or dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
The honorable supreme court also delved into the phrase “reason to suspect the commission of an offense.” As mentioned in Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code implies the ability to logically infer, based on specific and articulated facts presented in the First Information Report (FIR) and any accompanying annexures, if applicable, along with any relevant circumstances, the occurrence of a cognizable offense. It should be noted that this inference does not require definitive proof. In other words, the interpretation of the expression “reason to suspect” should be determined by the facts and circumstances unique to each case, and any doubts regarding the sufficiency of the information provided in the FIR should not arise.
The supreme court stated that it is acknowledged that some of the allegations in the FIR may lack clarity and specific details. Additionally, there are no explicit claims that either Respondent No. 1 or his relatives and friends had no legitimate sources of income to acquire the properties registered under their names or that Respondent No. 1 misused his official position to benefit them. These are all matters that can only be examined during the course of the investigation and subsequently by the court based on the evidence collected and presented by the investigating agencies. At this stage, the court cannot determine whether the properties were independently purchased by the relatives and friends of Respondent No. 1 using their own funds or not solely based on the denial statement of Respondent No.1.In essence, the court should not draw conclusive judgments regarding the allegations and counter-allegations at this early stage, as they require thorough investigation and presentation of evidence before a final decision can be made.
The honorable court stated that in the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself. The current stage of the matter is premature, and the investigation has not progressed beyond preliminary efforts conducted during the registration of the case. The gathering of evidence requires a thorough investigation, and it is upon the presentation of such evidence before the court that a conclusion can be reached regarding the allegations of mala fides (bad faith or malicious intent). It is essential to recognize that at this stage, there are only allegations and counter-allegations without any substantial evidence. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to preemptively anticipate the outcome of the investigation and make a finding on the issue of mala fides based on the currently available materials. Simply alleging personal animosity as the motive for the complaint is not sufficient grounds to dismiss the complaint, especially when it contains serious allegations that need to be examined and evaluated once the evidence is collected. The complaint cannot be disregarded solely on an unsubstantiated claim of mala fides.
And also, when granting permission under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to allow a lower-ranked police officer to conduct an investigation, a Magistrate should not treat it as a routine matter. Instead, it is an exercise of the Magistrate’s judicial discretion, considering the underlying policy. The order granting permission should clearly state the reasons for granting such permission. The Superintendent of Police or any higher-ranked police officer, when granting permission to a non-designated police officer under the second provision of Section 5A (1), must ensure that there are valid and sufficient reasons to entrust the investigation to a lower-ranked officer. The granting authority should record their reasons for making such a decision. This requirement is essential because the legislature’s intention in enacting Section 5A is to ensure that investigations of offenses punishable under Sections 161, 165, or 165A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are primarily conducted by officers designated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 5A (1). Exceptions to this rule should only be made for justified reasons, which should be clearly stated in the order.
Since the issue regarding the legal authority of the SHO has been raised at the initial stage, it is appropriate and necessary that if the investigation is to proceed, it should only do so based on a valid order that strictly complies with the mandatory provisions of Section 5A (1). requirements.
CONCLUSION
The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case remains an influential legal precedent in the fight against political corruption in India. This high-profile case not only exposed the allegations of corruption and abuse of power by a prominent political figure but also laid the foundation for important legal principles and guidelines to address this pervasive issue.
The judgment in this case marked a significant departure from traditional legal approaches, emphasizing the importance of holding public officials accountable for their actions. By expanding the scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court empowered citizens to actively participate in exposing and combatting political corruption. This shift enabled individuals to directly approach the court with evidence, contributing to the overall transparency and integrity of the legal process. The impact of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case extends beyond its immediate context. It set a precedent for subsequent cases involving corruption charges against public officials, influencing the development of anti-corruption laws and policies in India. Moreover, it fostered a more proactive approach by the judiciary in addressing political corruption, reaffirming the court’s commitment to upholding justice and preserving the integrity of the democratic system. In conclusion, the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case represents a significant milestone in the Indian legal system’s battle against political corruption. It not only exposed the corrupt practices of a prominent political figure but also set important legal precedents and guidelines.
[1] 2nd Year law student at NLU Visakhapatnam.
[2] ‘State Of Haryana And Others v. Bhajan Lal And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, Casemine.Com’ (https://www.casemine.com) <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac4ee4b014971140e92a> accessed 28 June 2023.
[4] The constitution of India,1949, Art.226
[5] The Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S154
[6] The Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S155
[7] The Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S156
[8] The Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S157
[9] The Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S159
[10] The Code of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S482
[11] Prevention of corruption Act,1947, S5.
[12] ‘P. V. Jagannath Rao & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 16 April, 1968’ <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/392008/> accessed 30 June 2023.
[13] ‘Sheonandan Paswan vs State Of Bihar & Others on 16 December, 1982’ <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/996328/> accessed 30 June 2023.