On April 9, Swamy had also filed public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India.

1. @.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
cryrL APPELLATE JU RISDICTIION
I.A.No.- of 2018 r,
IN!
CIWL APPEAL No'10660 of 2101
!;r the Matter Of:
Crenter of Public Interest Litigation & Ors
Versus
Union of India & Ors
And
!n the Matter gf:
Dr. Subramanian SwamY ...Intenrener i Applicant
1. Application for Direction with affidavit.
2. Annryure A-1
Copy of order dated 06.05.2011 passed
by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No'
10660 of 2010.
3. Annexure A-2
Copy of order dated 07.LL.2012 passed
by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No.
10660 of 2010.
4. Annexure A-3
Copy of order dated 01.05.2014 passed
by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No.
10660 of 2010.
5. Annexure A-4
Copy of order dated L2.03.20t8 passed
by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No.
10660 of 2010, t
10-11
12-15
16-19
NEW DELHI
DATED:
$ t [tR $t
Responde
20-?,5
Through:
DR. SLIBRAMANIAN SWAMY
AF,PLICANT.IN-PERSON
AB-L4, PANDARA ROAD,
NEW DELHI
T-Aa

2. ,--,#
Dr
IN THE SU E
CIWL APPE
I,A.
CIVIL APP
In the Matter Of:
Center of Public Interest
Versus
Union of India & Ors
And
. Subramanian SwamY
Appli
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of
Judges of the SuPreme Coutt
Most RespectfullY Showeth :
1. That the APPlicant is a
the above matter.
2. This Hon'ble Couft was eased
in 2G Spectrum Case a I.A. NO
further IA no. t32429 of 20t7 fl
before this Hon'ble Cou
3. This Hon'ble Court has
To
a&
India
from time to time for expeditious in the
TEJ
RT OF IND
Directions
The Hqt
Applicant
Parliament a
enteftain the
78 of 201,5 in
by the
direct[ons
IN
No
L
ICTION
of 2O10
Petitipner(s)
.. RespQndent(s)
Applic{tion
rvenampd
of the
an Irfteruener in
No. 36 of 2010
Mfxis case. A
is afso pending
the above matter

3. --w
7
zG ispectrum case / Maxis-Aircel case, being monitorect by this
Hon'ble Court in the above proceedings'
4. Vide an Order dated 06.05.2011, the Hon'ble Suprreme Couft was
pleased to observe as under-
,,In the main case i.e. civit Appeal No.1066;0 of 2'010 titled
,,center for Public Interest Litigation and ohhers v. union of
India and others", this court had, on 16.3.,2011, issued the
following direction:
,,while adiourning the case, we make it dear th,zt no one
including-the newspapers shall interfere wiilh the fwnctioning
of the cBI team and the officers of the Enforcement
-oirirbrit"
who are investigating what ha's been described
as 2-G scam and the Court witl take serittus cog'nizance of
any endeavour made by any person or gnoup of persons in
this regard."
Shri Rajeshwar SinEh, Assistant Director of Ertforcement in the
Directirate of enfiriemenA who is investigatiing the case with
reference to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (for
short, "the Act') issued summons dated 2'2"2011 and
so.s.zotl to the'Managing Director of M/s, .Sahara Prime city
Ltd. and M/ s. Indh Cimmercial Corporation ,Ltd. under Sedion
50(2) and (3) of the Act requiring him to dpp€7r along with the
documents mentioned in the schedule eppended to the
summons,
on 5,5.2011, a communication was sent t'o shri Rajeshwar
singh by one shri sybodh Jain, who des'cribed himself as
reiortei of Sahara Salnay, asking him to ansl'yer 2!i questions
with an indication that Sihara News Networp is planning to do
a series of storie:g based on the documents allegedly in its
possession,
",/
shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counse'l representing the
C.B.L and the Erirrrtement Directorate in Civ'il Appeal No.10660
of 2010 submitted that all the questions contained in the
communication of shri subodh Jain are absolutely ,7ersonal tq
shri Rajeshwar Singh and are intended to threaten him with
adverse publicity aiparentty because he has ,issued s;ummons to
the Maiaging Oir*rto, of ine organisation' S,hri Venugopal then
produce[ two sealed envelopes and statttd that the same
contain the answers prepared by shri Rajes;hwar s'ingh to the

4. qs"
25 questions. The sealed envelopes were opened, we have
perused the answers prepared by Shri Rajeshw'ar Singl'
We are prima facie ,satisfied that an attempt has been made to
interfere with the investigation being cortducted by Shri
Rajeshwar Singh in what his been described as 2G .9cam and
related matteis by trying to pressurize him no't to proceed with
the investigation qua certain individuals. Therefore, wct take suo
motu cognizance and direct issue of notice"'
A cppy of the said Orderr dated 06'05.2011 passed by this Hon'ble
Court is at Annexure A-1 (Paqe No. 10-11)'
5. vide order dated 7.LL.20L2, in an IA 7120L2 preferred by the
Invrestigating officer of the Enforcement Directorate, this Hon'ble
Court was further pleased to observe that-
.t.'...'...Thedocumentsannexedwiththisapplication
show that every possible effort has been made to
interfere with the investigation being conducted by'shri
Rajeshwar singh on behalf of the Enforcement
Directorate. Th; filing of Criminal Misc. ffrit Petition
NoJ752012 (PIL.) in Rllahabad High court and making
of simiiar complaint to the Principal Secretarry, Home of
whichcognizancehasbeentakenbytheltate
Government andl the direction has been issuerd to
Additional Director General of Police, Econclmic Offence
Investigation organization, Lucknow irrdicate that
attempis are being made to prevent the applicant from
conducting the investigation fearlessly. All this ,orima
facie amoi.rnts to violation of the direction given b'y this
Court on 06.05.2011.
In the meanwhile, the proceedings of criminal Miscr. writ
Petition No.77512312 (PIL) titled Vinod Kunrar vs. Union
of Indira and others pending before the Allahabad High
Court lt Rltununad shall remain stayed. Are also direct
the Government of Uttar Pradesh and all o'fficers
subordinate to it not to proceed with any enquiry or
investigation into the complaint made by sl'rri Manv'endra

5. @
4
Pratap singh, Advocate on 15.09.2012 or any similar
complaint which may be made by any other person
against the aPPlicant,"
A copy of the said Order dated 7.IL.20LZ passed by this Hon'ble
Court is at Annexure A-2 (Paoe No' 12'15)'
6. Vidr: anotherf Order dated 01.05.2014, this Hqn'ble Court was
pleilsed to observe that-
..Dr.RajeshwarSingh,DeputYDirector,Enforcement
Directorate, who is conducting the investigation of Aircel Maxis
case is directed to continue with the investigation along with
two other Investigating Officers till the completion of the trial."
A copy of the said Order dated 01.05.2014 passed by this Hon'ble
Corurt is at Annexure A-3 (Page No' 16-19)'
Vicle further order dated 12.03,2018 this Hon'ble couft was pleased
to direct that the investigattns shall be completecl within six months
in all the cases and on all the aSpects of the matter and no stone
shiap be left unturned in t#s r.gard and all guilty shall be booked. A
copy of the said Order dated L2.03.20L8 passed by this Hon'ble
Corurt is at Annexure A-4 (Page No. 20-25)'
It is thus a matter of record that constant effofts have been made to
anryhow derail the progress of investigations in tlre instant case, by
lelrelling scandalous, false, motivated, baseless and frivolous
allegation s lnter alia af accumulating property and wealth, against
the Investigating Officer. Therefore, time and again necessary
7.
B.

6. -@
5
9.
direrctions were required to be issued by this Hon'ble Court in the
interrest Of justice and to ensure Smooth and fair investigation into
the case.
The Applicant is constrairned to move this Application for seeking
directions to the CBI and Enforcement Directorate so as to ensure
smpoth and fair investig4tion intO the case, which is again being
sourght to be derailed by certain Individuals mainly one Shri Upendra
Rai with the aid of his suborditnate Sh. Subodh Jain and other
unl<nown persons, who afe acting in conspiracy to flout the Orders
pa:;sed by this Hon'ble Court and to resist the Investigating Officer
to continue to investigate as directed by this Hon',ble court. They are
ha,ring unholy nexus with undisclosed politicians, bureaucrats and
corporates under Investigations.
It is also a matter of record that in past various complaints against
the same Investigating officer sh. Rajeshwar singh, have been
ins;tigated by them, which were found to be baseless and void by the
Cerntral Bureau of Investigation (C49, Enforcement Directorate (ED),
and the Central Vigilanpe Commission (CVC). These results are
mr:ntioned in IA No,7 of 20t2 and IA no. 1127t]6 of 2017 filed by
said Sh. Raje$hwar Singh.
It is reliably learnt that now again similar efforts are being made by
them to derail the investigation into Aircel Maxis case' which is at a
very crucial stage. Attachments made by the said Investigating
Olificer who has an impqccable integrity and work efficiency record,
10.
11.

7. -&
6
L2.
have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMt$. A
Connplaint through one Sh. Anil Galgali of Mumbai appears to have
been circulatf by them tQ various departments with sinister motives
to l.arnish his unblemished record on one hand, and to derail the
investigations on the other. Significantly, Order rJated 06.05.2011
records that explanation to each of the earlier 25 questions put to
the Investigating Officer Are already taken on record and are in a
sealed cover before this Hon'ble Court.
The said Shri Upendra Rai claims himself to be a journalist, but from
the details available on the Internet it appears that presently he is
not even having accreditation from Press Informati,on Bureau (PIB).
I
The Applicant submits that as per his reliable source, name of the
saird Shri Upendra Rai is irnlre list of undesirable person in the black
list i.e. Undesirable Contact Men (UCM)' As per Article dated
13,06.2012 published in India Today under the he,ading'CBI puts 23
names on dubious middlemen list', in officiial parlance, the
Inclividuals are termed undesirable contact men and the CBI is
tas;ked with zeroing on them. The objective of drawing up the
confidential UCM list is to alert vanious Governmenrt Departments not
to consider these people from accreditation or as representatives of
firms. Furthermore, the purpose is to warn the GOvernment Officials
to'avoid associating with them socially and acce;rting hospitality as
well as gifts from them'.
13.

8. -&
7
L4. The Applicant submits that it is trite that such persons in UCM have
questionable sources of inCome and accumulate huge unaccounted
wealth.
The Applicant submits that the said Shri Upendra Rai is also carrying
and uses a highly sensitive Airport Entry Card allegedly issued by
Bureau of Civil Aviation and Security (BCAS), which probably has
been obtained on false and fabricated papers.
Despite facing Contempt Proceedings in the above case' the said
Shri Upendra Rai and his associates are again active and are trying
to scuttle the investigations by circulating fals;e, frivolous and
pseudonymous complaints against the Investigating Qfficer for
harassing and embarrassing him, for personal pecuniary gains and
questionable motives.
In rriew of the above, this urgent IA has been preferred in the above
case for seeking necessary directions in the interest of justice. The
pr€rs€r'rt applipation is moved so that the independent investigation
I
being monitored by this Hon'ble Court may not ber impeded and the
true and correct factual position is placed before this Hon'ble Court
by the CBI and ED after due investigation into tlne conspiracy and
cre:dentials of said Shri Upendra Rai and his associates.
PRAYER
In the above premise and in the interest of Justice it is most
res;pectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
15.
16.
17,

9. /s
(a) Direct CBI and ED
bound manner
Upendra Rai and
with undisclosed pol IS,
Investigations;
accreditation;
of
ing and
Card allegedly
a report in
ting into the
IB card
using the
by Bureau of
ils disclosed and
thereof;
Securities; and the
amassed by him w
t
the
(b) In the meantime, CBI please be di
note about Shri
Men (UCM) in a
on the list of
Pass any approp erlorders in
circumstances of
Rai
(c)
New Delhi.
Dated:
8
irs
to unravel his un
in a time
said Shri
nexus
under
having
Entry
and
assets
furnish a
Contact
Ai
Av

10. *&
IN THE S
Civil
I.
Civil
rN iltF I{ATTER OF:
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC I
LII-IGATION & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA & OR
DR. SUBRAMANIAN S
AB-14,PANDARA ROA
NEW DELHI.
I, Dr. Subramanian S
Subramanian, R/o.
solemnly affirm and
1. That I am the
fully ilcquainted
competent to
That Paras 7-17
my knowledge.
3, That the last pa
VERIFICATION: VeTifi
2018 that the facts
to my personal know
noiihing material is co
,
2.
PREM COURT OF I
Appell te Jurisdicti
of 2018. No.
In
peal N . 10660 of
TER
AMY
amy, a ed 76 years,
14, P ndara Road,
rea under:
ica in the afo
with t e matter
r the
tion forapp
is the rayer.
atN Delhi on
ras 1-17ted in
ge, no part of tlnis a
led erefrom.
I
APPELI-ANT
PPNDENTSRES
APPLI .NN.PERSON
Sitarama
hi hereby
. and am
and fully
re true to
DEPONENT
s_ flay of April
einabdve are true
DEPONENT

11. ,^K
(*'
ITEM NO.MM-i:
SUPREME
CONTEMPT PETITION(C)N0,224 OF 2011
CIVII APPEAL N0(s), 10560 0t 2010
MJESHIIAR S].NGH
VERSUS
SUBR}TA ROY SAHARA AND OTHERS
Date:06,/05/',2011
COMM :
Th:.s Petititon
HONIBIE MR. JUSTICE G,S,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK
T
For Petj.tioner (s)f Mr,
Mr.
Mr.
Mr,
Mr,
Mr,
Ms.
For Respondernt (s) Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr
f f or
Raj iv
Sonam
S ldharth
Gaurav Kej
Keshav Moh
resPonden
C.D,Sin
UPON hearing counsel the
OR
In Lhe main case i..e,
2010 titled "Cente! for Public
others v, Union of India and
on 16.3.2011, issued the following d
"!ihile adjourning the case, h'e
no one including the newspapers
witli tire functioning of the CBI
off:lcer:s of t,he Enforcement fiir
investigaling what has been des
' and th€J Court will lake serious
endeavour made by any person or
i n t'h i c roaa rr{ rl
Shri Rajeshwar
Enforcement. in lhe Directorate of
invesLigatirtg the case with referenc
of Money Laundering Acl, 2002 (for s
issued siurnmons dated 2,2,
Managing Dir:ector of M/s. Sahara Pr
$. India Commercia]
c0
RECORD
H, P. RA
Indira
Gopal S
Anirudh
Hari sh
responden
rhcsvi
D: ralrh
nd Adrr
Adv,
Court
ER
viI Appea
Inte!est
recLion I
keitc
orate
-tL^! -^!flEq qt
roup of
t,o the
tr d
RT O
PROCEED
I ar
A. S, G,
a, Adv.
nhre (r
iwaI, Adv
r Adv,
nos, I a
sEcTI0N,XIV
]NDI,A
PETITIONER (
nespolaent (
for heBring toda
rcrr fhi
the following
N0.10660 ot
tigation and
^a!.-r
L-I
VUg! L llegt
-L^11 i-l^
team and t
ai i1, t.i-.,l
ation
r that,
fere
of any
r^-l
n1'
rtnr
t 'rfhe fil)
30,3.201i
and M,/
. undgr
n.
TO
Director

12. ^&
(.l
5Ci2) and (:i) of the Act requi
with the documgnls mentioned i
nrrhl iqh
Ra j r:shwar
tnt qf nrr, n
Qi nnh Aec
t
inn him I
commun tca
L t-i -ll VdJllt
Saha
s of sto
possesSi0n
Enforceme
0 submitte
sation.
s and st
anSwe rs
ied thal
th fho in
ht4lax
utd L Lgl D
th the r
The
vlal r
counsef
clients
pr09
D LdII L
Snrr
ri Ma
A rnr: )
answer 25 guest,ions with an i ication 'l
to the summens.
0n 5,5,2011, a
Rajeshwar Singh by one Shri Su
himsel f as renorter
Necwork is Srlaning to do a ser
thr-. documents allegedly in its
conducted by Shri Ra
described as 2G Scam and relat
pressurize irim not to proceed w
qua certain individuals,
cognizance and direct issue of
Shri Gaurav Kejr
petition ancl lhe main case, his
of M/s. Sahara India TV Network
questions contained in the ication
Ja:Ln are absiolutelv personal t (hri P:ia
and are internded to threaten with
Shri K.K. Ve I,
rFhraqonf i nfl i'ha a ll T an^
in Civil Appeal No,10660 ,of 20
tnrt>roni" lrr fronerrco
Managing Director of t.he organ
then produce:d two sealed envel
same cont,ain the ans
Singh to t.he 25 questions,
opened. We have perused
Rajeshwar Sj.ngh,
We are prima facie satis
been made to interfere w
Sidharth Luthra, Iearned senior
on behalf of resDondent Nos. L )
Advocate accepts notice for
Reply affidavils
Further affj.davi: of Shri Rajes
rlithin next trlro
feeks,
List the Case on ilth Ju
Shri Luthra says that du
y, 20LL
ng the
L^
WAI Singh
NoIDA, U,
of lsahara India Commercial Cor ratron
Indj.a Maes Communication, NOIDA U.P, wi]I
Dirr:ctorale, Government of Ind
The ernvelopes produced
taken on record. Th
reseal the same. ' The
(4.D, Sharrur)
Cour! Master
(Phoolan Wa
Court
appear al,ong
le appended
o described
Samay,
t Sahara News
es based on
I o:rnad cani nr
i ni 16^i^rrl-6
that all the
f ahri crrhnAh
r Qi nah
nuhl { ni trr
issued summons
led that
by Shri
sealed
prepared
n attempt has
tigalj.on being
trrri nd l-a
stigation
fore, we take suo
Advocate
viled
J --
ni ro^i-^r
Venugopal are
rs are dlrect,ed to
has done,
bny
and
noL
t{ t{
fha
Raj eshwar
envelopeo
htr ahri
Singh in what,
l,rithin
filed
y vr LrlaP
employee
a unll
Sahara
do 0r
^Ah^arn

13. :&' v'aT/
ITEM NO,30I
SUPREME
CIVIT
CENTER FOR Plt,E ORS,
VERSUS
UN]ON OF INDIA E ORS,
HONIBIE MR,
HON'BLE MR,
For Appeliarrt (s)
c0
RECORD
RT
PROC
N0 (s) ,
called o
SINGHVI
RADHAKRIS
Bhushan,
Sachdeva
re Pannrf
ne Tax Dep
"/
I
(For consideralion of the $ta
Enforcement Dixectorate and I
Datei 01/11./2012 This Appea]
CORAM :
JUSTICE G,S,
JUSTICE K, S,
Mr. Prashan
Mr, K. K. Ven
Mr, Hari
Mr, Pra
Mr, Santo$h Kumar Tr
Fnr Focnnnrlc,nf /c
ror ubl ano tsu N. Salve'
P. Raval,
Nanda/
Sankarana
N j.gam,
Mr, Harin
Mr. Raj iv
Mr, Gopal
Ms, Padna
For RR No,4 Mr,Mukul Gupta
MrTA
Mr,V.N,
Sr, Adv.
Kumar/
Sanghi,
Mrs . Anil Katiyar,
Mr I Q tn
Mr. Ritin
ndhiok,
Rai, Adv.
Mr, Rit,e
Mr Di rrtr
Dr, Subraman am swamy/
Kumar S
Satya M lra GargrMr
Mr
Mr
Navin
Anupam
Mr, Gaurav
Ms, Swikr
Mr. Siddhar
Mr, Devvrat,
Das, A.
a Kumar S
ej riwaI,
ni, A,0.R
i Singhan
S i ngIa,
A, O. R.
SECT]ON XIV
INDIA
NGS
60 0F 2010
Appe]lant (s
Respgndent (s
submitted by the
rtment and office r)
for hearing today.
Adv.
Adv.
thi, A,0.R,
v.
tamr
yanan, Adv.
ntervenor- in-Pets
rma, A.0.R.
1L
ri,{NExURF }q-?
t'

14. ^,8 '{
UPON hearinq counsel
I,A,No.,,...,.0f 2012 in Con
of 2010
As soon as the p
pending issues arising out of t
Shri K,K.Verrugopal, learned sen
of Investigertion and the Enfo
on behalf of the petitioner in
which the following substantive
rr1 fli ronl- f hc cf :rr
PELIE1ON NO, I IJ/ZULI
a h: -^^t FL^ i--
L , Vf r e9 q LtrE rrrry
llisc.lirit Petition No
Allahabad as a par
nrnnaarl i naq r
? nironi Fho cf
Offences l,ling of the
clirections contained
ConLemnor/Respondent
Shri Venugopal re
application to show that cons
browbeat an officer who is
Enfo.rcement DirecLorate in one o
We have perused the
scrutinized lhe annexed document
detal.Ied order in the cont,emPt
"In the main case i.e' Civ
for Prrblic Interest Litiga
ot.her$", this Court had,
"While adjourning the
including the
the CBI team and the
are investigaEing wha
Cour! wiII take seri
person or group of pe
Shri Rajeshwar Singh,
Directorate of Enfo
4. I oir..t the 1mp
Secretbry Home' G
refere,nc{ Lo the Pieventi
'rthe Act") issued summons
Di.recLor of M/s. Sahara
CorporaLion ltd. under
to appear along with the
to the surunons.
0n 5.5.2011, a corununicati
Shri. Slubodh Jain, who de
askinq him to answer 25
Network is planning to do
he Court
RDER
Petition
r ngs
order
counsel
t- amnf Pa
ayers h
of all
prT. haf^
eadment
11 5 / 2012
y-Cont
u nf fhc
f ha I al
adment o
rnmeng
the
rred Lo
e fforts
i na i n
tha f:
verments
. 0n 6,
i I i
^n
J nyytrdr
ion and
16,3,201
UqDg,
rs shall i
has been
cogn 1 z
c ln
s is lant
t '.'h^ iUt
Eed 2,2,2
ion 50 (2)
umen E s
l.,as sent
ibed himse
stions wiL
cari oc nf
the fpllowing
N0,224 of 2011 in
nced for conslde
by this Court
ring for the
rate handed over
tion (CiviI) No.
been nade:
ings in Crimi
the High Court of
f the Petitione!
DTT.I hafnra l'hc IJ
/Respondent in
iry initi.ated by
tar Pradesh purs
r of 10.10,2Q12i
Sri R.M. Srivasta
of U. P, as
t proceedings. "
the documents fi
re being made
tigat,ion on
of 2G case.
lained in the a
.20llt this Cour
same reaos a5 u
.10660 of 2010 ti
llh i
^-D V r Vlllvll
issued the followi
make it clear
terfere wit,h the f
t,he Enforcement Di
as 2-G
e of any endeavoul
c rcae rd ll
rector of Enfo
investigating t
underlng Aet, 2002
1l and 30,3.f011 to
City t d. and M/s. I
(3) of the Act
tioned in lhe
to Shrl RaJe$h',|at s
f as reporter of
an indication that
stories based on
t3
C.A,No.l 00u
10. 1z,
irr'l
appllca
aF )n11
Misc.
Crimi
Court
Ito
with
harags
€aF
catlon
had
1 erl !l
India
direct
L ll9
t,ioning
fha
10,
on
dI
tha
and
fha
and
er
nd
and
by
1n tho
fthcase
Lhe
Comroer IdI
ing
by one
II
Sahara

15. I allpoodlv in its nossessi
$hri K,K. Venugopal, Iea
and the Enforcenent Di
submit.ted that all th;
Shri Subodh .Iain are abso
are int,e[ded to threaten
.l
ne hasi lgsued sumnons to
ShrL Venugopal then prod
same contai.n the answers
questj.ons, The seaLed en
answers prepared by Shri
I,|e arer prima facie sat,i
int.erfere with the invest
Singh in what has been de
trv'i na f n nrcssrrri ze him
certai.n individuals. The
issue of notice,
Shri (iaurav KeiriwaL, Ad
scnior nnrrnsel A.aenfs n^f
Shri f' fl (i nnh Adrrnc:fo
RepIy affidavits be filed
Rajesirwar Singh may be fil
LisL the case on llth
The errvelopes
Court, Masters
done, "
,luI
dur
produced by
rrc di rcniad
spnt nr
Lions con
with
Managi
ied rhat
at,ion bei
ribed as
Lo
ce
thin six
wi !hin
2011,
fho ne
lo
Shri Luthra says that
m>i n r':co hi c nl i onferilqJrr ,aot, rrJo vrrLrruJ any emp
Network, NOIDA, U.P, - a u it of
Ltd. and Sahara India Corununica
publish any slory or pr
Assistant Di.lector, Enfor EUI
The documents annexed with
effo::t has been made to interfe
Shri Rajeshwar Singh on behalf o
of Criminal Mlsc.!{rit Petit.ion
and making of simj.Iar complainl
cognj.zance has been taken by the
been issued to Additional Direc
' Investigation Organizalj.on, Luck
Ll ^ ---lrrrD ayyr
with the
the Enfo
.11 5 / 2At2
the Pri
r Genera
indica
pondenLs
Ldr y,
to prevent the applicant from rn9
lhis prima facie amounts to viola ion of th
on 06.05.201,1.
Issue notice to the
Drrdc ch l'hr'^rrdh Dri nni ne I (on
n-^*l l- -/l{}l^*UqO Lf I fll OLIUI LlVll.
In [he meanwhile' t,he
VinodPetit,ion No.175120L2 (PIt) titl
pendi,ng before the Allahabad
t.le also direct lhe nment
subordinate to it not to proceed rth any
Civil Appeal No.1
ined in the fua L
f r-- al to Shri
erse publicify try
Director of the
I representi the C
660 of
organisa
ted thated envelopes and s
pared by Shri Rajeshw4r S
wer opened. 9{e have
ngh.
perused
eshwar S
on be
Ls no
with the in t igat.ion
ke suo motu cogni and
an attemPt has
ann.lr!afa.l hrr
Scam and relat
ing Shri Sidharth
1f of rospondent
j.ce for respondent
iRa
rra L LE
thra,
ks. Furlher affi
two weeks.
ncy of thls peti on and
yee of M/s. S
a India Commercia
n, NoIDA, U,P. wi
ning Shri Ra r
orate, Governnent India.
ugopal are faken
India
Corpora
not do
same, The need
reco!d,
I has
ation show that
nvest,igat,ion being
i I)i ra^f^rrl-6
PIt) in Allahabad High
ofipal Secreta4y,
rnnent and the
UN
resea l
ction
n AFFnf Dnl ino. v*-vv,
that aENenpts are
investigation fear
directlon given by
being
essIy.
this
re alen l'ho q
returnable on ?q 11
y!vv i nac aF t^r
vs. Union of Indi and
shatrI stayed
Ut,tar Pradeqh and
or invQstlgat
rt ott
.Lr into
&
Singh
2010
-and
use
ion.
th^utttr
ZJ
the
gua
a^l-
t
fha
TV
poss
ofU
Misc.
rle
by
ng
'!t,
ch
I

16. ^$F
$
lr'
co:{rpl;rint n;rde by Shri Manvendr
any similar conplaint which may
applicant,.
Civil Appeal. No.10660 of 20i0
Learned Additional
containing Progress RePort. da
cases:
1 . CBI Case No. RC
2, CBI Case No.RC
3. CBI Case No.RC
The Registry of the
received frc,m the Central Vigil
Both the envel
sel
Pratap S
be made an
I i ni f nr
29,r0.20
Advocate on
other perso
5.09.201
againstv
or
the
Let t,his LA. be I ed on 29 11 )i1 )
To be taken up al 2 00 P.M.
the report and gave rePIY to ce
For further conside
case t^/ill ber Eaken up on 08'11.
The CourL Masters a
separate se:rled envelopes. The
(Satish K.Yadav)
Court Masler
ral produced
in relation lo
045 (2G SpecErum
022 (Airce1 Maxis
024 (AddI.SpBctrum
lso submitted a
ion,
nanad i n tho
ring for the Cent
te took us through
rePort and othe
DM
f^ hlrfr l"^fh
reE
been done.
(Phoolan !|at
l.nrr ri'
ed
he
enve
foll
r 2009 A
I 2011 A
r 2011 A
)
qa
ed env
rf
I Burea
part
lssues,
Arora)
fFr
(hri
^€
the
in
K.K.Venugopal, learned senior
Investiqaticrn alfd the Enforce
Court has
nce Corunr
Di rect.o
tion of
012 at. 2.
o di rcel'
needful

17. ; TTEM NO.
"rp'r
344
SU
II
.l
PREME
I
tI
CIVIL AP
CENTER FOR PIL & ORS.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORs,
(l,Jj.th appln(s) fon dinections a
documents and intenvention and c
|lITH
C0NTEMPT PETTTTON (CrVrL)
CoNTEMPT PETITIoN (CIVTL)
pate:01/05/20L4 These
on
NO.
N0,
AppeaI
for he
/Dotifi
ni no f'n
CORAM ;
Fon Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
HON'8LE MR. ]USTICE H.
HON'BLE MR, ]USTICE K,
'/
Mn. Pnas
MF OF
Mn. Vis
Dn, Subr
(Applic t In Per
Mn. K.
Mr. Go
Mr, Ro
Mr. Vi
Ve
udh Ta
M<C
Mn, Ha
Mn. An
Mn, P,lt, Ma1hotna, ASG
Mn. Ra:iiv Nanda, Adv,
Mn, B,fi, Pnasad, Adv,
Mr. D,1,, Chidanandar Adv.
Mr. Ritln Rai, Adv,
Mn, Rlt;esh Kumar, Adv,
Mn, D.Si, Mahna, Adv,
,lr "'l .:
"
.'
Mn. Mukul, 6upta, ASG
Mn, T.A, Khan, edv,l
Mns, Anll. Katiyan, Adv'
OF IN
EDINGS
oF zAtA
pe nmls s
a nific at
on to file ad
on and office
of 29Ll
n4 1A11
I
, DATTU
. RADHAK
t Bhus
Sachd
-i ir qi
s wene
v,
ISHNAN
a, Adv, ,
, Adv, ,
ca I led
ian S , Adv.
I Sanka
on)
a1, 5r, Adv.
ananayanan, Adv.
AdV,
, Adv,
, Adv,
kar, Adv,
an, Adv,
t Bhatt,
amadity
a Mathu
h Pnabh

18. : Mn. Ariji't Pnasad,
- Mn. Aseem Swanoop,
l-tr, l'4n, E. c, Agnawala,
Adv.
Adv.
Adv,
M/s Suresh A Sht off & Co', Advs'
Mn. 5,K. 'y'enma, Adv.
Mr,AbhiJat P. Medh, Adv,
'Ms. Ninanana Singh, Adv.
Mn. Satya mitna Garg, Adv.
, l:'.
' Mn.''8,v. Ba!.r'am'oas;f aUv.
Mr , Na'rin Chawla, Adv .
Mn. Anupam Lal Das,Ad
Mr. Vikas Singh, St . Adv'
Mr, Dhanmendna Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Dl, Rajeev Dhawan, Sn. Adv.
Mn, 6aurav Kejniwal, Adv.
Mr , Kesha'v Mohan,, Adv .
Mr, Santosh Kumar TriPathi, Adv'
lls, S. Ramamani, Adv,
Mn. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Adv'
Mn. Abhinav Mukenji, Adv.
Kanan j awal.a
Siddh;rth s
UPON heaning counsel the Cou
M/$
I
| 'Mi"'.
Mn'
I
Mr.
Mr.
Mn.
Mn.
Shri K. K.
Devvrat,
Kaus h ik
Prashant Bh
Manoj K Mi
14, K , 'Verma,
Ashutosh Kr
Anuvarat S
Ravi P Meh
Kaushal Ya
ORDER
VenugoPa s enlon
I?

19. @'@""""anins
on uerrarJ of the i
,^lS
Y appeaning on behalft of the investigating
officer for Centra] Buneau of Invpstigat
M
W"pp"""ing on behalJ of the lnvest{Satine a
thqt Shni Vivek PniVadanfhi
officer for Centra] Buneau of Invfstieatio
RaJeshwan Slngh ls the lnvestisatflng offlc
'Enforc"ttent Dinectorate., who
investigation of Aircel maxi-s cas!,
: shni Vivek eniVadarfhi,
officen of the Central Bureau
'pnesent
along with Shni K'K' VenulCopal, Ie
counse]
4
t.,
Dn. RaJeshwan Singh, Oenutf Dinector
Dinectonate, who i; co{0uctine
Aiicel Maxis case is dinlcted
investigation along wllh
Qfficens tlll the completion of
Jhe
tnial
I snri K,K. Venugopal,
'leann{o
,tnio'
fil.ed two sets each of sta'
, ihe Status Repont on beh
. Investigation and secondly., the
1lth,
12tl
status neports on behalf of Enfofcement D
; sealed crcvens
The same are taken on necofd '
The Status RgPort filed on behalf c
I
" " suheatr of 'Investigition is onenef'beforte'
is againr kePt in sealed covens '
liJe dlrect the B^e-&+$IY to keeP t
sealed covers and not to open tle same w:
leave of the Count,
t
ency submits
is the inv
and Dr,
fon the
who
of Investi
rned senior
:-
Enfoncement
fhp
1 +^ anh'' LV LVrl
two othen
counsel has
u5 neports I
If ,of
and 13th
rectonate trn
the Centnal
ese nePontF in
thout the
ane conductl
tigati
LOn
lnve
ue
flnstly
entnal
18
gatton of
with the
nvestigating
Buneau of

20. ct&!a' -t
w#1vbvLr,'.J
,-..
,
tcartr
^
hln l) r}.l C,A, No, 1A550 o11 20tQ; t A. rlv
Stat:us nepont on I . A ' No ' 72 be fj'Ied on on
befone t2,,08.20t4.
List the matten on 12.08':101"4'
Contempt Petition No. 224 OF 2411 In Civil Appea] No'
No, 10660 of 2010
List j.n the month of )ulY, 201'4,
I Charanjeet Kaun ]
Count Masten
[t Vinod KuIvi ]
Asstt, Regl.stran

21. "d
rTEM NO,5gI
HON.BLE
HON'BLE
For Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
COURT NO.10
JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
JUSTIGE NAVIN SINHA
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AoR
Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR
, Mt. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, AIOR
I Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
Ms. Varnika Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR
Ms. Ridhilna Singh, Adv.
In - person
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASc.
Mr. P.K. Mallick, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, AOR
Mrs. AniI Katiyar, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Rajeev Nanda, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Ms, Swarupama Chaturvedj.,
Mr. curmept Singh Makker,
Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv.
Ms. Swati btrildiyal, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
/
EME
RECORp
MR,
MR.
Adv.
Adv,
AOR
fl^^.r.rAr il,
7o
OUT TODAY
SECTION XIV
SUPR COURT OF IIIDIA
OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil- Appe,al No(s).10660/2oLO
CENTER FOR: PUBLIC INTEREST LTTIGATION & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS 8r ORS.Respondent(s)
(rA N0 .L72786/2Ot7-DTRECTTON/MODIFTCATTON and rA No. 113252/2017 -
CLARIFICATION,/DIRECTION ANd IA NO.t32429/2Ot7-APP'ROPRIATE
ORDERS./DIRECTTONS and IA No .As66o/z0t9l
Date : L2-03-2018 This matter was called on f,or hrearing today.
CORAM :

22. '@
2l
Mrs. AniI Katiyar, AoR
Mr, A. R4dhakri$hnan, AOR
Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.
Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR
Mr. Madhqmita Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh.Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Ms. sandydMishra, Adv.
Mr. S.K.l'lripathi, AOR
Mrs. Nirflnjana $ingh, AOR
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, nrOR
Mr. Gaurav Kejriwal, AOR
Ms. S. Ramamanj., AOR
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Siddharth Singla, AOR
Mr. Devvrat, AOR
Mr. Kaushik poddar, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR
Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR
Ms. Amita Singh KaIkaI, AOR
Mr. Karan Bharihoke,AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
'l'his is an important case pertaining to ZG $pectrum.
The F,etition was filed in 2010. Various orders had been
passed by this Court nunber of times. Thererafter, for the
l-ast several years, we find that nothing substantial
happened in the matter.
tlltimately, this Court has passed an order on
4.1,.201.8 to investigate the case further and to submit the
status; report and the case was ordered to be listed on
23.L.2:018. Thereafter, It is coming up today.

23. l
l
l
l
l
l
l
I z'Ll
l
l
l
I
l
l
l
ce for the people of thisT'
l
'acted the atfentioh of thisI
i
rg. It is r?h unfortunate
I
l
an investigation in a1l 2c-l
l
: been complqted in aII the-l
l
rs direct aI! the toncernedI
l
Directorate I etc. in theI
l
rri K.K. Venufiopal, A.C. and
r
I
1at investigations shall be
-t l
l
r all the cases and on a1lI
l
l
rd no stone , shall be left
I
l
L guilty shalf be bfoked but
I
'iculties/ re$istanQe in theI
l
r K.K. Venugopal, Attorney'1.
l
r difficultie$ be placed on
l
the various ] cases be also
l
l
I
)ver, within a period of two.I
ific
att
ceI
o far
has no
by
ia,
ths
rer,
cial
eof
20L4
and
the
arlie
Speci
udge
09.20
.I. a
ore t
earJ
spe
Judg
,.09 .
B.I.
fore
r,
as
as
0
c
tte
t
ed
,ed
the
l
I
ma
I
sJ
or.
tlt
bFf
dif
Shr
rt of
Y of this
ted hri U.U.
been eleva
e order
r counsel for
the procee
S.
l
ate
"--w
I
the aspects of the ma
unturned in this regard
This case has s
country as the 2G scam
Gourt and citizenry s
state of affairs that
and other allied cases
issues and allied as
agenc:ies, CBI, Enfor
circumstances, as assur
Attorney General for
completed within six
at the same time, cert
proce,ss were pointed
General for India. Le
record and status re
placed on record in a s
weeks.
Considering the
this Court had appo
Prosecutor. Since Shri
this Gourt, this
nominated Shri Anand Gr
the Einforcement Directo
"Tria1 Court".

24. -"ry
4
t
Thereafter, the Government of IndJLa had issued
notification on 26.aL.zot4 and zz.tt.zgL4 iappointing shri
Anand Grover as special./pubric prosecutor for conducting
prosecution, appeals/f'evisions or other proceedings
arising out of the cases related to ZG Spectrum
investigated by the Dp1hi SpeciaJ. police, Establishment
(CBI) in the Court of Special Judge (2G Spectrum cases),
Central Bureau of fnvestigation, Neh, Delhi and
appellate/revisional cqurts and vide noti.fication dated
27.tI.2914 Shri Anand Grover was appointed as Special
Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution,
appeals/revisions or other proceedings out of the cases
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2OO2 etc.
arising out of 2G Spectrum
23
cases on lbehalf of the
Directorate of Enforcerlnent bef ore the Special Court of
PMLA and appellate,/fevisional and higher Courts.
Thereafter, Shri Anand Grover had conducterd the matters.
However, it is stated bV Shri Grover that lthe cases which
were pending before the trial court at th€ time when he
was appointed are over.
Now, the Govern$ent has issued fl notification
appointing Shri Tushar Mehta, Sr.Adv, in exercise of the
power conferred by subl-section (8) of section 24 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of L97tl). The Central
Government has appointe$ him As per modifired notification
for the purpose of "Apppa1s./revisions or other proceedings

25. a=g
arising out of the
inves'tigated by the
(CBI) is the Court of
Central Bureau of I
revis:lonal Gourts", ar
Spectrum investigated
Estab.lishment (CBI) in
spectrum casts, Centr
DeIhi".
Contempt applicat
petitJloner CPIL i. e. i
2gL8 questioning appoi
application No.28660 of
Grover to discharge him
After hearing the
are orf the opinion t
Special Prosecutor by
services rendered by
appointment was conf
had i-ssued a notifica
revisional proceedings
to iss;ue fresh notificat
application filed by S
from the case.
rhi
stiga
Iea
this
to
ion
cases
ing ou
by
the
Bu
has
Gont
tment
2gt8 h
rom t
f Shr
tc. it
rela
counsel
Grover
urt. We
the same t
trial court
other
was open to
in the fact
Grover for
?-
the parties,
appofnted as
prec{ate the
, sfi.nce his
and Gtvernment
rts, appeals,
the Gdvernment
, w€ {Ilow the
his {ischarge
Jud
)ns,
of
e
tio
Tu:
rir
led
:itj
TI
fi

26. -Y
2,8
l.n the af oresai.d circumstances, we f ind that no
contempt is made out since the cases are o/er before the
trial court for which purpose, this court had appointed
shri Aifldhd Qrover as special Pubric Prosecutror. rt cannot
be said to be a case of contempt comnnitted by the
Government while appointing Shri Tushar Mehta a$ pubtic
Prosecutor vide aforesaid modified notificat;ions. No case
is madle out to proceed with the contempt perLition and the
same is hereby dismissed.
T'he application filed by Shri Anand Grover is
allowed. He j-s discharged from the cases.
Vlre request Mr. K.K. Venugopal, l-earned senior counsel
to continue as Amicus curiae and in official capacity.
Since Shri Anand Grover has been discharged, it would be
open to the Government to appoint a Prosecultor for trial
court purposes. In case, Additional Investigating Officers
are required, it is open to the Government tro appoint them
under information to thjrs Court. All pending applications
to be listed on the next date.
Let the case be listed on 3.4.201..8.
( B. PARV'ATHr )
COURT MIASTER
(suMAN JArN)
BRANC}I OFFICER