SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

 

The Petitioner is a Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha and has been Chief Minister of State of Madhya Pradesh for 10 years. Being a public figure, the Petitioner has been serving the people of this country for the last forty years. As a man of impeccable integrity, the Petitioner is being subjected to humiliation as being an accomplice to someone who had allegedly “fabricated and forged evidence” in VYAPAM cases to mislead the investigation.

 

The Petitioner prefers the present Writ Petition in order to protect his fundamental rights as the reputation of the Petitioner in the society, which the Petitioner has earned with integrity and service to the State of Madhya Pradesh, for last 40 years has been tarnished by the allegations that the Petitioner herein had “fabricated and forged evidence in order to mislead the investigation” in Crime No. 539/2013 lodged at Police Station, Rajender Nagar, Indore of VYAPAM case.

 

The allegation finds its source from a report dated 22.04.2015 of Special Investigation Team (SIT) regarding the material sent by an External Whistle Blower, a computer expert to High Court of Madhya Pradesh on directions of the Delhi High Court. The whistleblower had produced incriminating material regarding tampering of Evidence by Indore Police in the Excel Sheet maintained by Nitin Mohindra (accused; principal system analyst; VYAPAM Official) and the direct beneficiary being the sitting Chief Minister of MP viz. Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan. The whistleblower had assisted Indore police and STF in investigation of VYAPAM cases in the capacity of a consultant.

 

 In the original excel sheet regarding recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II, III and AG-3, which is part of evidence and chargesheet under Crime No. 19/2013 and Crime No. 20/2013 filed by Special Task Force (STF), “CM” featured at 48 places as a recommedor/sponsor of candidates which was either replaced with “Umabharatiji”, “Rajbhawan”, “M/s” and “Minister” or altogether deleted.  The excel sheet featured the name, roll number of a candidate, the recommender and the examination for which the candidate approached the recommender to qualify.

 

The External whistleblower had approached the Petitioner herein in December 2014/January 2015 under threat of life and limb from high profile persons of Madhya Pradesh and police agencies of Madhya Pradesh as the Whistleblower was privy to very sensitive incriminating/ damaging information regarding the involvement of Chief Minister and Chief Minister’s family in VYAPAM scam. The Petitioner on the basis of the information and documents provided by the Whistle blower submitted a representation to SIT on 16.02.2015 with the original excel sheet, but no action was taken by either SIT or STF in that behalf.

 

A Report was prepared by the SIT on 22.04.2015, on basis of the demonstration given by staff of STF (Special Task Force), which is ill equipped and ill trained to handle the nuances of digital forensics. The SIT in its wisdom considered it appropriate to neither summon the whistleblower who had provided the material nor called upon the Truth Lab, Bangalore to demonstrate the veracity of the Evidence. The Truth Lab, Bangalore is a renowned and reputed forensic lab of the Country and had certified and authenticated the material provided by the Whistleblower on whistleblower’s request.

 

The said report of the SIT was presented before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction in W.P. 6385/2014 on 24.04.2015 whereby the High Court agreed with the prima facie finding of the SIT without application of mind and in a monitoring jurisdiction gave a prima facie finding in the order.

 

It is submitted that at both forums i.e. before SIT or High Court, the Petitioner was not present as no intimation or summon was issued by either of the forums to explain the stand of the Petitioner herein and the proceedings were undertaken behind the back of the Petitioner.

 

Thereafter, the sitting Chief Minister, Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan on 26.04.2015 held a press conference at his residence proclaiming that the Petitioner has been lying all along regarding the original excel sheet, that the Petitioner has “forged evidence” and the Chief Minister has been given a clean chit by the SIT and the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur vide report dated 22.04.2015 and order dated 24.04.2015. The press conference was widely reported in all the leading newspapers of Madhya Pradesh with the statement of Chief Minister.

 

This Hon’ble Court in  Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, (1989) 1 SCC 494 at page 514 made a reference to the following excerpt from Bhagwat Gita:

 

Paragraph 22.

The following words of caution uttered by the Lord to Arjun   in Bhagwad Gita with regard to dishonour or loss of reputation may usefully be quoted:

“Akirtinchapi bhutani kathaishyanti te-a-vyayam, Sambha-vitasya        Chakirtir maranadatirichyate. (2.34)

(Men will recount thy perpetual dishonour, and to one highly  esteemed, dishonour exceedeth death.)”

 

Paragraph 24.

In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 77 at p. 268 is to be found the statement of law in the following terms:

 It is stated in the definition Person, 70 C.J.S. p. 688 note 66 that legally the term “person” includes not only the physical body and members, but also every bodily sense and personal attribute, among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Blackstone in his Commentaries classifies and distinguishes those rights which are annexed to the person, jura personarum, and acquired rights in external objects, jura rerum; and in the former he includes personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. And he makes the corresponding classification of remedies. The idea expressed is that a man's reputation is a part of himself, as his body and limbs are, and reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others, and it is capable of growth and real existence, as an arm or leg. Reputation is, therefore, a personal right, and the right to reputation is put among those absolute personal rights equal in dignity and importance to security from violence. According to Chancellor Kent as a part of the rights of personal security, the preservation of every person's good name from the vile arts of detraction is justly included. The laws of the ancients, no less than those of modern nations, made private reputation one of the objects of their protection.

 

The right to the enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege, of ancient origin, and necessary to human society, as stated in Libel and Slander Section 4, and this right is within the constitutional guaranty of personal security as stated in Constitutional Law Section 205, and a person may not be deprived of this right through falsehood and violence without liability for the injury as stated in Libel and Slander Section 4.

Detraction from a man's reputation is an injury to his personality, and thus an injury to reputation is a personal injury, that is, an injury to an absolute personal right.        

                     

The Petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court as the order of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur dated 24.04.2015 was passed in its monitoring jurisdiction, the proceedings of which are attended only by an Additional Advocate General of State of M.P. who is present in capacity of Counsel for STF (investigating agency) and the officers of STF. No other Counsel, petitioner, Applicant is allowed in those proceedings. Hence the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy and approaching this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 

 

1970-2007

The Madhya Pradesh Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘VYAPAM’ M.P. Professional Examination Board) was formed and entrusted with duty to conduct Professional Examinations in 1970. Subsequently in 2007 VYAPAM was also entrusted with a duty to conduct various examinations for appointment/recruitments in Government departments this included departments like Transport, Education, Dairy, Wight and Measures, police, excise etc.

 

Thus VYAPAM became a single window for entrance in Professional Courses as well as getting appointments in various Government Services.

 

07.07.2013

An F.I.R being F.I.R No. 539 of 2013 was lodged in Police Station Rajendra Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh against unknown persons under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. on a complaint that certain students with false identity cards are staying at a hotel to appear on behalf of other candidates in PMT examination.

 

18.07.2013

As per the chargesheet filed in Crime No.19/2013 and 20/2013 relating to recruitment examination of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police seized the office computer of Nitin Mohindra (Principal Analyst VYAPAM; Accused) from Bhopal VYAPAM office at 04.30 pm.

 

As per the Petitioner’s information (provided by the whistleblower), the services of computer experts were requisitioned by the Indore Police as well as by the STF to assist investigation. A renowned computer expert (the whistleblower) who has been assisting various Government departments in data recovery was summoned and asked to recover the data, which was allegedly deleted by the writer, i.e., Mr. Nitin Mohindra before the seizure of its hard disk on 18.07.2013. The said computer expert (whistleblower) succeeded in recovery of the original data and saved a copy of the same through the help of the software installed in the Computer. However, the copies of the Excel Sheet filed by the STF before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in FIR No.19/2013 and 20/2013 contain material alterations, deletions and substitutions, that tantamount to tampering with evidence, which is required to be produced before the Court of law.

 

As per the original deleted excel sheet retrieved by Indore police with help of Computer Expert (whistleblower) on 18.07.2013, “CM” featured at 48 places as a recommendor/sponsor for candidates appearing for Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III and AG-III. The said specific entries were either replaced with others like “Umabharatiji”, “Minister”, “Rajbhawan” and “M/s” or altogether deleted. This information is authenticated and certified by Truth labs, Bangalore, a private reputed forensic lab in a detailed report. The aforesaid tampering of evidence was done by Indore police, direct beneficiary being the Chief Minister of State, Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan.

 

22.07.2013

As per the chargesheet filed in Crime No. 19/2013 and 20/2013 relating to recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police sent the hard disk of Nitin Mohindra’s computer to DFS Gandhinagar, Gujarat for forensic analysis.

 

 

26.08.2013

Special Task Force (STF) by notification was entrusted with the investigation of all cases relating to VYAPAM scam. A number of FIR’s were lodged by STF in cases relating to illegal admissions/ recruitment totalling 55 cases, 45 relating to admission in professional courses and 10 relating to recruitment in government services on recommendation of high profile persons.

 

16.04.2014

A set of fourteen Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur, the lead Petition being W.P. 15186/2013 titled Awadhesh Prasad Shukla vs State of Madhya Pradesh praying for transfer of investigation of VYAPAM cases from STF to CBI. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose off all the Writ Petitions with the direction of suo moto monitoring of all the cases of VYAPAM.

 

July 2014

The Petitioner herein along with other persons filed Writ Petition No.11695/2014 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh praying for transfer of Investigation to CBI in light of developments that had taken place after the order dated 16.04.2014 on basis of the chargesheet submitted by STF in various cases relating to VYAPAM as the investigation conducted by STF prima facie appeared to be flawed and to shield the principal perpetrators and prosecute the students and their parents.

 

05.11.2014

The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition 11695/2014 along with others by entrusting the supervision of STF to Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of Retd. High Court Judge, Retired IPS officer and a Technical Expert. The Court monitoring of VYAPAM Cases was to continue in W.P. 6385/2014. Thus a second tier of supervision was introduced in Court monitoring proceedings by High Court of M.P.

 

28.11.2014

The Petitioner along with other persons preferred various SLP’s against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court being S.L.P C.C No. 16456 of 2014,  S.L.P C.C No. 17700 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 17908 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 31563 of 2014 were filed before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the above mentioned S.L.P’s on the statement made by the Ld. Attorney General of India on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh. It is pertinent to note that this Hon’ble Court enlarged the jurisdiction of SIT constituted by Hon’ble High Court of M.P. to supervise all the cases of STF investigation in VYAPAM scam.

 

06.12.2014

The Petitioner in a representation to Special Investigation Team, pointed out discrepancies in the investigation conducted by STF overlooking aspects of “larger conspiracy”, no investigation in recruitment of Patwaris etc in cases involving high profile persons. Unfortunately upto this date no action has been taken by STF (Special task Force) in this regard.

 

Dec 2014-January 2015

 An External Whistle blower contacted the Petitioner herein fearing for his life and limb as the Whistle blower possessed incriminating and damaging information while working in capacity of a technical consultant with investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Police and STF). The damaging information related to tampering of evidence by investigating agencies to shield the Chief Minister and other high profile persons of Madhya Pradesh in VYAPAM scam cases relating to recruitment examination of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II, III and AG-III. The whistleblower provided the hard copies of the material (with material /mirror image of same) demonstrating tampering undertaken by investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh to shield the Chief Minister and other Ministers of the Madhya Pradesh Government.

 

16.02.2015

The Petitioner herein on affidavit submitted a representation before the S.I.T. (consisting of Hon’ble Chairman – Shri Chandresh Bhushan, Retired Judge Madhya Pradesh High Court, Shri Vijay Raman Retired I.P.S (Member Police) and Shri Reddy (Member Technical) constituted on the directions of High Court of M.P. The Petitioner herein stated on the basis of the incriminating material provided by the External whistleblower that the Petitioner has original excel sheets/ materials in which “C.M.” was mentioned at 48 places as a middlemen/ recommender of the candidates which was substituted with “Uma Bharti Ji”, “Raj Bhavan”, “M./s”, “Minister” and at other places all together deleted in excel sheet retrieved from the deleted data of Mr. Nitin Mohindra (Principal System Analyst; VYAPAM) regarding Crime No.19-20/2013 relating to recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and III. The investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh have tampered with the electronic evidences and submitted false and fabricated excel sheets in the charge sheets filed before competent court of law.

 

20.02.2015

The external whistle blower (digital forensic engineer/ computer expert) who had worked for S.T.F Bhopal and other investigating agencies during the course of investigation of VYAPAM cases filed a Writ Petition No. 334/2015 under Article 226 r/w Article 21 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi with following prayers:

 

(i) Be pleased to Direct Respondent no. 1 (State of NCT) to provide police protection to the Petitioner as the life and limb of the Petitioner is under threat from highly influential persons in Madhya Pradesh and Police authorities of Madhya Pradesh.

 

(ii) Pass an order restraining the Respondent No. 2 to 4 (Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Police and STF) i.e. authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh from illegally arresting/forcibly taking the Petitioner away from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

 

20.02.2015

The whistle blower claimed in the petition that he has incriminating and damaging information regarding the involvement of Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and his family members in VYAPAM cases. The whistle blower also made a prayer before the High Court of Delhi to submit the original excel sheets/ material (electronic evidence in form of soft copy) in the safe custody of Delhi High Court. The High Court of Delhi vide order dated 20.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 334 of 2015 was pleased to grant him police protection as an interim relief and directed the police authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh not to remove the whistle blower from within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court except in accordance with procedure established by law and without intimating the Petitioner and his counsel on record in this behalf.

 

23.02.2015

The Petitioner wrote to SIT on basis of the material provided by the Whistle blower, in which the Petitioner had submitted cell numbers of prime accused of VYAPAM scam cases along with IMEI numbers and landline/cell numbers of Chief Minister, Chief Minister’s wife and other persons from Chief Minister’s office. The call detail records and SMS’s sent between these numbers would have corroborated that CM’s office, CM and CM’s wife were in direct touch for facilitating illegal admissions/recruitment through VYAPAM. But surprisingly the SIT neither forwarded it to STF for investigation nor placed it before Monitoring bench of High Court.

 

25.02.2015

The Petitioner wrote a letter to SIT Bhopal VYAPAM cases along with the order of Delhi High Court passed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 334/2105 filed by the Whistleblower, requesting for convenient time and place for presentation by the External Whistleblower for explaining the material which incriminate the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and Chief Minister’s family as the Whistleblower was under threat of life and limb in Madhya Pradesh.

 

04.03.2015

The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 6385/2014 (monitoring jurisdiction) was pleased to pass an order on the grievance made by Advocate General in context of the documents submitted by Petitioner herein before SIT, as an attempt to influence the SIT. The said order was passed in absence of the Petitioner without any notice. Further the Advocate General submitted that what is more intriguing is that the SIT was ready to oblige the request made in the representations including an undertaking visit to Delhi. The AG further submitted that the SIT is overstepping its authority under judgment dated 05.11.2014. The High Court of M.P. (in its monitoring jurisdiction) held that SIT could not “on its own” unearth the information made available to it, if it was in respect of investigation of the crimes under monitoring. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh further called for a report in sealed cover by Chairman SIT about the circumstances in which he accepted the request to go to Delhi on 04.03.2015 and the purpose of visit so made.

 

13.03.2015

The whistleblower before submitting the incriminating material in a pen drive to the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 334/2015, sent the material to “Truth labs” Bangalore for analysis and veracity of the material. Truth Lab Bangalore is a private forensic lab, credible and reputed, the advisory board of Truth lab consists of legal luminaries and others like :

(i)                Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah.

(ii)             Justice M.Jagannadha Rao.

(iii)           Justice V.S. Malimath.

(iv)           Mrs Ranjana Kumar, Former Vigilance Commissioner.

(v)             Dr. Palle Ram Rao, Former Secretary, GOI.

(vi)           Mr. C.S. Rao, Former Chairman IRDA

(vii)        Mr. C. Anjaneya Reddy, Retd IPS, Former DG Vigilance

(viii)          Mr. MVS Prasad, Retd IAS, Former Special Chief Secretary, A.P.

(ix)           Mr. Kamal Kumar Retd IPS, Former Director NPA.

(x)              Mr. P.S.V. Prasad Retd IPS, Former Director NPA.

(xi)           Mr. Vepa Kamesam, Former DG, RBI

(xii)         Dr. Lalji Singh VC BHU & Former Director  CCMB

(xiii)          Mr. Potturi Venkateshwara Rao, Former Chairman , AP Press Academy

(xiv)          Prof. T.V. Rao Em.Prof IIM Ahmedabad

(xv)         Mr. Pradeep Mittal, Founder Magna Infotech, Hyderabad

 

18.03.2015

The External Whistleblower submitted the report of Truth Labs Bangalore alongwith pendrive in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 in the Custody of the High Court of Delhi.

 

23.03.2015

The Petitioner sent a Complaint to SIT (VYAPAM) for registering offences and arraying the Chief Minister and the officials of Madhya Pradesh Police as an accused in Crime No. 19-20/2013 relating to recruitment Examination of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and III in light of judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. & Ors alongwith the certified copy of Truth lab report and copy of the pen drive containing incriminating material. A clear-cut case of tampering of evidence by investigating agencies was made out to save the Chief Minister of the State.

 

26.03.2015

The Writ Petition No. 334/2015 filed by the External whistleblower before Delhi High Court was disposed of on the submissions made by the Counsels with following considerations:

 

(i)           Counsel for STF at the outset by placing reliance on the Counter affidavit submits that they do not wish to interrogate the Petitioner in the matter.

 

(ii)          Counsel for the Petitioner in light of the statement made at bar by the counsel appearing on behalf of STF states that subject to the Petitioner being provided protection by the Police in Delhi there is no need to proceed further with the subject petition.

 

(iii)         A copy of the purported material available with the Petitioner shall be transmitted in a sealed cover to the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur within a fortnight.

 

(iv)         The parties shall be bound by the respective undertakings made by their Counsel in Court today.

 

04.04.2015

The Petitioner herein sent a reminder letter to SIT Vyapam cases in reference of letter dated 23.03.2015 providing information regarding cognizable offences committed by Indore police to shield the Chief Minster Madhya Pradesh. The SIT/STF has not taken any action till date on the information provided by the Petitioner herein in teeth of Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1.

 

08.04.2015

The STF issued an information letter/summon to Petitioner on the representation submitted to SIT by the Petitioner dated 06.12.2014, 15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015 for a statement.

 

09.04.2015

 A copy of the pendrive along with the certified copy of the report of truth lab was forwarded by the Counsel of the whistleblower in W.P. 334/2015 under directions of the High Court of Delhi to Registrar General Madhya Pradesh High Court.

 

15.04.2015

The Petitioner appeared before SIT VYAPAM cases in Bhopal regarding the letter dated 08.04.2015 sent by STF. The Petitioner also pointed out various representations and Complaints sent by the Petitioner on which no action was taken by either the SIT or the STF:

 

(i)             Representation to SIT dated 06.12.2014: The Petitioner pointed out discrepancies in the investigation conducted by STF overlooking aspects of “larger conspiracy”, no investigation in recruitment of Patwaris etc in cases involving high profile persons.

 

(ii)            Representation dated 16.02.2015 with affidavit of the Petitioner and a copy of the “original Excel sheet”, Petitioner informed SIT that there is destruction/tampering of evidence by Investigating agencies to shield the Chief Minister by substituting and deleting “CM” from 48 places and replacing them with “Umabharatiji”, “M/s”, “Rajbhawan” and “Minister” in excel sheet submitted in FIR 19-20/2013.

 

 

(iii)            Letter dated 25.02.2015, requesting the SIT for convenient time and place for a presentation to be given by the whistleblower, explaining the material and genuineness of the evidence provided by the Petitioner. The Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh termed it as “an attempt to influence the SIT and create avoidable confusion” appearing for STF in Court monitoring proceedings.

 

(iv)           Complaint of Cognizable offence dated 23.03.2015 to SIT with a copy to Head of STF, after the verification and substantiating tampering of evidence by Truth Labs, Bangalore for adding name of additional accused in the investigation of FIR-19-20/2013 and for adding offences under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120-B against Sh. Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh and the concerned officers of Indore Police along with principal offences. Truth Lab Bangalore has a governing body comprising of eminent personalities of the nation and their credibility is vouched for by the investigating agencies and Superior Courts. The expert from Truth lab is also willing to assist the investigation if called upon.

 

 

Further the information letter/summon of STF was not as per the procedure prescribed in Cr.PC. The letter was not a summon under Section 160 or 161 of CrPC after registration of a crime and why no action has been taken by SIT till this date on the representations filed by the Petitioner from time to time. The SIT in presence of the counsels of Petitioners candidly accepted that they are incapacitated “to go into the facts” and are helpless in the matter.

 

16.04.2015

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in its Monitoring jurisdiction in W.P. 6385/2014 passed an order and forwarded the documents provided by the Counsel of the Whistleblower in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2014 filed before Delhi High Court to SIT VYAPAM cases Bhopal to submit a response in context of the documents on or before 23.04.2015 and fixed next date of hearing on 24.04.2015.

 

22.04.2015

The SIT on basis of the demonstration given by STF staff gave a prima facie opinion that the material appears to be forged with the intention to mislead the investigating agency in Crime No. 539/2013 registered at Rajendra Nagar Police Station Indore. It is submitted that the SIT made no effort to contact the Whistleblower or the Truth lab, Bangalore regarding the material. No effort was made to verify the contents of pen drive by sending it to a central forensic laboratory at Hyderabad or Chandigarh and a prima facie opinion was given on basis of the demonstration of STF staff. The STF technical team is ill equipped to deal with the forensic nuances of evidence and the prima facie opinion is based on their demonstration.

 

23.04.2015

The STF takes statement of the Petitioner in Bhopal in relation to representations dated 06.12.2014, 15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015 filed by Petitioner before SIT VYAPAM cases.

 

23.04.2015

The STF on the same day after recording the statement of Petitioner herein issued summon to the whistleblower in light of the statement of Petitioner given to STF. The STF wanted to justify its investigation in the Complaint of tampering of evidence/Excel Sheet which was filed as evidence with the Charge sheet in Crime No. 19/2013 and 20/2013.

 

24.04.2015

The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction in W.P. 6385/2014 passed an order accepting the prima facie opinion of SIT on the demonstration given by STF staff that the material supplied by the Whistleblower appears to be forged in order to mislead the investigating agencies. It is to be pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. did not question the basis of the inquiry of the SIT, as the prima facie opinion of SIT is based on no investigation, no analysis or evaluation by a reputed Central Forensic lab, neither the whistleblower nor anyone from Truth lab was called or questioned regarding the contents.

 

26.04.2015

The Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh held a press conference at his residence, and made remarks about the Petitioner that the Petitioner had provided “forged and fabricated document” to mislead the investigation. The same was widely reported in all the leading newspapers of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

 

The said action of SIT/STF and High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding the material sent by the whistleblower, and non examination of the same without experts and behind the back of the Petitioner herein, the whistleblower and the Truth labs is not in judicious spirit. The same has tarnished the impeachable reputation of the Petitioner herein of last 30 years.

 

The reporting in the media and statement of the Chief Minister in press and on television has allegedly turned the Petitioner into someone “who had fabricated and forged evidence to mislead the investigation”.

 

29.06.2015

The Petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the reputation of the Petitioner herein is at stake.

Hence the present Writ Petition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.                OF 2015

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Digvijaya Singh,

S/o Late Shri Balbhadra Singh

Aged about 67 years

R/o 64, Lodhi Estate,

Lodhi Colony,

New Delhi – 110 01                                                     ...Petitioner

                                                 

Versus

 

1.           State of Madhya Pradesh,

Through Home Secretary,

Vallabh Bhawan,

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.                 ... Respondent No. 1

 

2.           Special Investigation Team,

VYAPAM cases, Vallabh Bhawan

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.                 .... Respondent No. 2

 

3.          Special Task Force,

              Through ADG,

              Near 7th Battalion, Jahagirabad,

              Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.                 .... Respondent No. 3

 

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF:-

 

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING, INTER ALIA, ISSUANCE OF WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPIATE WIRT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 24.04.2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR IN ITS MONITORING JURISDICTION IN W.P. 6385/2014 AND THE REPORT DATED 22.04.2015 OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (VYAPAM CASES) GIVING PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE MATERIAL OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS “FABRICATED AND FORGED TO MISLEAD THE INVESTIGATION” AND PASS THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THE NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHING NEWS/ARTICLES AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN REGARDING THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

 

To,

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

 

1.           That the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ order, direction, in the form of Certiorari for quashing order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 along with report dated 22.04.2015 of Special Investigation Team VYAPAM cases giving prima facie opinion that the material provided by the Petitioner herein is “fabricated and forged to mislead the investigation” and  pass for sending the incriminating material and truth laboratory report provided by the Petitioner for examination, analysis and authentication by a Central forensic laboratory and for transfer of investigation of Crime No. 539/2013 lodged at Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore and other VYAPAM scam cases for fair and impartial investigation to CBI or any other central agency.

 

2.           That the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India and is a senior leader hailing from Madhya Pradesh and has been the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh for 10 years. Presently the Petitioner is Member of the upper house i.e. Rajya Sabha and has been agitating against the VYAPAM scam and the flawed investigation by STF which is to protect the real perpetrators (high profile persons of Madhya Pradesh) than to prosecute them.

 

3.           That this Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner herein to safeguard his “right to reputation” a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which has been tarnished by the report dated 22.04.2015 of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and order dated 24.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction (W.P. 6385/2014) of VYAPAM cases. The petitioner is canvassing the instant grievance on account of loss of reputation, which the Petitioner had earned over a course of 40 years in service of nation and specially the State of Madhya Pradesh. Today the allegation against the Petitioner is that he had “forged and fabricated documents to mislead the investigation” in VYAPAM scam cases.

 

4.           The Respondent No.1 is the State of M.P. through Home Secretary. State of M.P. is a necessary party in the present Petition since the entire Vyapam scam unearthed in the said state and the investigation is also being carried out by the STF, which comes under the Home Department of the State of M.P..

 

5.           The Respondent No. 2  is the Special Investigation Team set up by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur for supervising the investigation of the infamous vyapam scam being done by the STF. It was the SIT who in its wisdom chose not to give an appropriate opportunity to the Petitioner or the whistleblower to explain to them as to how the entire excel sheet was tampered in order to benefit a few individuals in the state of MP. Therefore, the stand of the SIT would be important in deciding the present case.

 

6.           The Respondent No.3 is the Special Task Force. It was on the basis of the presentation of the STF that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) made a statement before the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur to the effect that the material provided by the Petitioner herein to the SIT was forged and fabricated. In view of the above, it would be imperative to the have the stand of the STF on record in so far as the manner in which they arrived at the said conclusion, in order to dispose of the present Petition.

 

7.           QUESTIONS OF LAW:

 

a.   WHETHER the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was correct to give a finding on fact in a monitoring jurisdiction vide order dated 24.04.2015 on a report of SIT dated 22.04.2015 which was based on a demonstration of staff of investigating agency, ill trained and ill equipped to appreciate the nuances of forensic examination?

 

b.   WHETHER the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was correct in passing the order dated 24.04.2015 without hearing any of the parties involved i.e. the Petitioner herein, the whistleblower or the representative from Truth labs Bangalore?

 

c.   WHETHER the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was correct in forwarding the incriminating computer/forensic material to SIT instead of a Central forensic laboratory to check the veracity of the material?

 

d.   WHETHER an order can be passed by any judicial forum on finding of fact against anyone without hearing them thereby violating the principles of natural justice?

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

 

8.           That the brief facts giving rise to the instant Writ Petition are as follows:-

 

a.           It is humbly submitted that, the Madhya Pradesh Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘VYAPAM’) was formed and entrusted with duty to conduct Professional Examinations in 1970.  Subsequently in 2007 VYAPAM was also entrusted with a duty to conduct various examinations for appointment/recruitments in Government departments this included departments like Transport, Education, Dairy, Wight and Measures Etc.

 

b.           Thus VYAPAM became a single window for entrance in Professional Courses as well as getting appointments in various Government Services.

 

c.            On 07.07.2013, An F.I.R being F.I.R no. 539 of 2013 was lodged in P.S Rajendra Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh against unknown persons under Section 419,420, 467, 468 I.P.C. on complaint that certain students with false identity cards are staying at a hotel to appear on behalf of other candidates in PMT examination.

 

d.           That on 18.07.2013 as per the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 19-20/2013 relating to recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police seized the office computer of Nitin Mohindra (Principal Analyst VYAPAM; Accused) from Bhopal VYAPAM office at 04.30 pm on 18th July 2013.

 

e.           As per my information, the services of computer experts were requisitioned by the Indore Police as well as by the STF to assist investigation. A renowned computer expert who has been assisting various Government departments in data recovery was summoned and asked to recover the data which was allegedly deleted by the writer, i.e., Mr. Nitin Mohindra before the seizure of its hard disk on 18.07.2013. The said computer expert succeeded in recovery of the original data and saved a copy of the same through the help of the software installed in the Computer. However, the copies of the Excel Sheet filed by the STF before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in FIR No. 19-20/2013 contain material alterations, deletions and substitutions, that tantamount to tampering with evidence which is required to be produced before the Court of law.

 

f.              As per the original deleted excel sheet retrieved by Indore police with help of Computer Expert on 18.07.2013, “CM” featured at 48 places as a recommendor/sponsorer for candidates appearing for Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III and AG-III. The said specific entries were either replaced with others like “Umabharatiji”, “Minister”, “Rajbhawan” and “M/s” or altogether deleted. This information is authenticated and certified by Truth labs, Bangalore, a private reputed forensic lab in a detailed report. The aforesaid tampering of evidence was done by Indore police, direct beneficiary being the Chief Minister of State, Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan.

 

g.           That on 22.07.2013 as per the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 19-20/2013 relating to recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II/III, the Indore police sent the hard disk of Nitin Mohindra’s computer to DFS Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

 

h.           That on 26.08.2013, Special Task Force (STF) by notification was entrusted with the investigation of all cases relating to VYAPAM scam. A number of FIR’s were lodged by STF in cases relating to illegal admissions/ recruitment totalling 55 cases, 45 relating to admission in professional courses and 10 relating to recruitment in government services on recommendation of high profile persons.

 

i.             That on 16.04.2014, a set of fourteen Writ Petitions were filed before High Court of M.P., lead Petition being W.P. 15186/2013 titled Awadhesh Prasad Shukla vs State of Madhya Pradesh praying for transfer of investigation of VYAPAM cases from STF to CBI. The High Court of M.P. was pleased to dispose off all the Writ Petitions with the direction:

 

 

  Paragraph 77

“Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, as of now, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for transfer of investigation to other investigation agency. At the same time, in large public interest, and to instill confidence in the investigation by the STF, we deem it appropriate to monitor the investigation done by STF periodically. That will meet the ends of justice.”

 

Paragraph 79

            “Since we are disposing of all the Writ Petitions in terms of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to treat the question regarding Court monitoring of investigation by STF of all the offences pertaining to examinations conducted by VYAPAM from time to time, as suo motu proceedings, and direct the Registry to number the said proceedings accordingly, to be listed on the 25th April, 2014, under Caption “Director”, for passing appropriate orders.”

 

j.             That in July 2014 the Petitioner herein along with others filed Writ Petition No. 11695/2014 before High Court of M.P. praying for transfer of Investigation to CBI in light of developments that had taken place after the order dated 16.04.2014 on basis of the charge sheet submitted by STF in various cases relating to VYAPAM as the investigation conducted by STF prima facie appeared to shield the principal perpetrators and prosecute the students and their parents.

 

k.            That on 05.11.2014, High Court of M.P. was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petitions by entrusting the supervision of STF to Special Investigation Team. The Court monitoring of VYAPAM Cases was to continue. Thus a second tier of supervision was introduced in Court monitoring proceedings by High Court of M.P.

 

 

l.             That the Petitioner alongwith others preferred various SLP’s against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by Hon’ble High Court of M.P. being S.L.P C.C No. 16456 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 17700 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 17908 of 2014, S.L.P C.C No. 31563 of 2014 were filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Hon’ble Court vide it’s Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2014 dismissed the above mentioned S.L.P’s on the statement made by the Attorney General of India on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh. It is pertinent to note that this Hon’ble Court enlarged the jurisdiction of SIT constituted by High Court of M.P. to supervise all the cases of STF investigation in VYAPAM scam.

 

m.         That on 06.12.2014, the Petitioner in a representation to the Special Investigation Team, pointed out discrepancies in the investigation conducted by STF overlooking aspects of “larger conspiracy”, no investigation in recruitment of Patwaris etc in cases involving high profile persons. Unfortunately to this date no action has been taken by STF (Special task Force) in this regard. A copy of the representation dated 06.12.2014 by the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (Pgs ___ to ___).

 

n.           That in the meanwhile in December 2014-January 2015 an External Whistle blower contacted the Petitioner herein fearing for his life and limb as the Whistle blower possessed incriminating and damaging information while working in capacity of a technical consultant with investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Police and STF). The damaging information contained tampering of evidence by investigating agencies to shield the Chief Minister and other high profile persons of Madhya Pradesh in VYAPAM scam cases relating to recruitment examination of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II, III and AG-III. The whistleblower provided the hard copies of the material (with material /mirror image of same) demonstrating tampering undertaken by investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh to shield the Chief Minister and other Ministers of the Madhya Pradesh Government.

 

o.           That on 16.02.2015, the Petitioner herein on affidavit submitted a representation before the S.I.T. (consisting of Hon’ble Chairman – Shri Chandresh Bhushan, Retired Judge Madhya Pradesh High Court, Shri Vijay Raman Retired I.P.S (Member Police) and Shri Reddy (Member Technical) constituted on the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner herein stated on basis of the incriminating material provided by the External whistleblower that the Petitioner has original excel sheets/ materials in which “C.M.” was mentioned at 48 places as a middlemen/ recommender of the candidates which was substituted with “Uma Bharti Ji”, “Raj Bhavan”, “M./s”, “Minister”. and at other places all together deleted in excel sheet retrieved from the deleted data of Mr. Nitin Mohindra (Principal System Analyst; VYAPAM) regarding Crime No.19-20/2013 relating to recruitment of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and III . The investigating agencies of Madhya Pradesh have tampered with the electronic evidences and submitted false and fabricated excel sheets in the charge sheets filed before competent court of law. A copy of the Representation along with Affidavit of the Petitioner dated 16.02.2015 sent by the Petitioner to the SIT is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2. (Pgs ___to ___).

 

p.           That the external whistle blower (digital forensic engineer/ computer expert) who had worked for S.T.F Bhopal and other investigating agencies during the course of investigation of VYAPAM cases filed a Writ Petition (Crl)No. 334/2015 under Article 226 r/w Article 21 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi with following prayers:

 

 

 (i) Be pleased to Direct Respondent no. 1 (State of NCT) to provide police protection to the Petitioner as the life and limb of the Petitioner is under threat from highly influential persons in Madhya Pradesh and Police authorities of Madhya Pradesh.

 

(ii) Pass an order restraining the Respondent No. 2 to 4 (Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Police and STF) i.e. authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh from illegally arresting/forcibly taking the Petitioner away from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

               

q.           The whistle blower claimed in the petition that he has incriminating and damaging information regarding the involvement of Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and his family members in VYAPAM cases. The whistleblower also made a prayer before the High Court of Delhi to submit the original excel sheets/ material (electronic evidence in form of soft copy) in the safe custody of Delhi High Court. The High Court of Delhi vide order dated 20.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 334 of 2015 was pleased to grant him police protection as an interim relief and directed the police authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh not to remove the whistle blower from within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court except in accordance with procedure established by law and without intimating the Petitioner and his counsel on record in this behalf. A copy of the WP (Crl) No. 334/2015 dated 19.2.2015 filed before the Delhi High Court is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3. (Pgs ___ to ___)

 

A copy of the Order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4. (Pgs ___ to ___)

 

r.             That on 23.02.2015, the Petitioner wrote to SIT on basis of the material provided by the Whistle blower, in which the Petitioner had submitted cell numbers of prime accused of VYAPAM scam cases along with IMEI numbers and landline/cell numbers of Chief Minister, Chief Minister’s wife and other persons from Chief Minister’s office. The call detail records and SMS’s sent between these numbers would have corroborated that CM’s office, CM and CM’s wife were in direct touch for facilitating illegal admissions/recruitment through VYAPAM. But surprisingly the SIT did not forward it to STF for investigation nor placed it before Monitoring Court. A copy of the Representation of the Petitioner to the SIT dated 23.02.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-5. (Pgs ___ to ___)

 

s.           The Petitioner wrote a letter on 25.02.2015 to SIT Bhopal VYAPAM cases along with the order of Delhi High Court passed in W.P. 334/2105 filed by the Whistleblower, requesting for convenient time and place for presentation by the External Whistleblower for explaining the material which incriminate the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and Chief Minister’s family as the Whistleblower was under threat of life and limb in Madhya Pradesh. A copy of the Representation dated 25.02.2015 of the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-6. (Pgs ___ to ___)  

 

t.             That on 04.03.2015 the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 6385/2014 (monitoring jurisdiction) was pleased to pass an order on the grievance made by Advocate General in context of the documents submitted by Petitioner herein before SIT, as an attempt to influence the SIT. The said order was passed in absence of the Petitioner without any notice. Further the Advocate General submitted that what is more intriguing is that the SIT was ready to oblige the request made in the representations including by undertaking visit to Delhi. That SIT is overstepping its authority under judgment dated 05.11.2014. The High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur held that SIT could not “on its own” unearth the information made available to it, if it was in respect of investigation of the crimes under monitoring. The High Court further called for a report in sealed cover by Chairman SIT about the circumstances in which he accepted the request to go to Delhi on 04.03.2015 and the purpose of visit so made. A copy of the Order date 04.03.2015 in WP No. 6385 of 2014 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-7 (Pgs ___ to ___).

 

u.           That on 13.03.2015, the whistleblower before submitting the incriminating material in a pen drive to the Delhi High Court in W.P. Crl. No. 334/2015, sends the material to truth labs Bangalore for analysis and veracity of the material. Truth Lab Bangalore is a

 

 

 

private forensic lab, credible and reputed, the advisory board of Truth lab consists of legal luminaries and others like :

(i)                Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah.

(ii)             Justice M.Jagannadha Rao.

(iii)           Justice V.S. Malimath.

(iv)           Mrs Ranjana Kumar, Former Vigilance Commissioner.

(v)             Dr. Palle Ram Rao, Former Secretary, GOI.

(vi)           Mr. C.S. Rao, Former Chairman IRDA

(vii)        Mr. C. Anjaneya Reddy, Retd IPS, Former DG Vigilance

(viii)      Mr. MVS Prasad, Retd IAS, Former Special Chief Secretary, A.P.

(ix)           Mr. Kamal Kumar Retd IPS, Former Director NPA.

(x)              Mr. P.S.V. Prasad Retd IPS, Former Director NPA.

(xi)           Mr. Vepa Kamesam, Former DG, RBI

(xii)         Dr. Lalji Singh VC BHU & Former Director  CCMB

(xiii)      Mr. Potturi Venkateshwara Rao, Former Chairman , AP Press Academy

(xiv)      Prof. T.V. Rao Em.Prof IIM Ahmedabad

(xv)         Mr. Pradeep Mittal, Founder Magna Infootech, Hyderabad

 

v.           That on 18.03.2015, the External Whistleblower submitted the report of Truth Labs Bangalore alongwith pendrive in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 in the Custody of the High Court of Delhi. A copy of the report of Truth Lab, Bangalore dated 18.3.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-8. (Pages_____to_____)

 

 

w.          That on 23.03.2015, the Petitioner sent a Complaint to SIT (VYAPAM) cases for registering offences and arraying the Chief Minister and the officials of Madhya Pradesh Police as an accused in Crime No. 19-20/2013 relating to recruitment Examination of Samvida Shiksha Varg-II and III in light of judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. & Ors alongwith the certified copy of Truth lab report and copy of the pen drive containing incriminating material. A clear cut case of tampering of evidence by investigating agencies was made out to save the Chief Minister of the State. A copy of the Complaint of the Petitioner to the SIT dated 23.03.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-9. (Pgs ___ to ___).

x.           That on 26.03.2015, the Writ Petition No. 334/2015 filed by the External whistleblower before Delhi High Court was disposed of on the submissions made by the Counsels with following considerations:

 

 

(i)           Counsel for STF at the outset by placing reliance on the Counter affidavit submits that they do not wish to interrogate the Petitioner in the matter.

 

(ii)           Counsel for the Petitioner in light of the statement made at bar by the counsel appearing on behalf of STF states that subject to the Petitioner being provided protection by the Police in Delhi there is no need to proceed further with the subject petition.

 

 

(iii)         A copy of the purported material available with the Petitioner shall be transmitted in a sealed cover to the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur within a fortnight.

 

(iv)         The parties shall be bound by the respective undertakings made by their Counsel in Court today.

 

 

              A copy of the Order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (Crl) No. 334 of 2015 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-10. (Pages_____to_____)

 

y.            That on 04.04.2015, the Petitioner herein sent a reminder letter to SIT Vyapam cases in reference of letter dated 23.03.2015 providing information regarding cognizable offences conducted by Indore police to shield the Chief Minster Madhya Pradesh. That the SIT/STF has not taken any action till date on the information provided by the Petitioner herein in teeth of Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1. A copy of the Reminder letter sent by the Petitioner dated 04.04.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-11. (Pages_____to_____)

 

z.            That on 08.04.2015, The STF issued an information letter/summon to Petitioner on the representation submitted to SIT by the Petitioner dated 06.12.2014, 15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015 for a statement.

 

aa.           That on 09.04.2015, a copy of the pendrive along with the certified copy of the report of truth lab was forwarded by the Counsel of the whistleblower in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2015 under directions of the High Court of Delhi to Registrar General Madhya Pradesh High Court.

 

bb.           That on 15.04.2015, the Petitioner appeared before SIT VYAPAM cases in Bhopal regarding the letter dated 08.04.2015 sent by STF. The Petitioner also pointed out various representations and Complaints sent by the Petitioner on which no action was taken by either the SIT or the STF:

 

(i)             Representation to SIT dated 06.12.2014: the Petitioner pointed out discrepancies in the investigation conducted by STF overlooking aspects of “larger conspiracy”, no investigation in recruitment of Patwaris etc in cases involving high profile persons.

(ii)            Representation dated 16.02.2015 with affidavit of the Petitioner and a copy of the “original Excel sheet”, Petitioner informed SIT that there is destruction/tampering of evidence by Investigating agencies to shield the Chief Minister by substituting and deleting “CM” from 48 places and replacing them with “Umabharatiji”, “M/s”, “Rajbhawan” and “Minister” in excel sheet submitted in FIR 19-20/2013.

 

(iii)            Letter dated 25.02.2015, requesting the SIT for convenient time and place for a presentation to be given by the whistleblower, explaining the material and genuineness of the evidence provided by the Petitioner. The Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh termed it as “an attempt to influence the SIT and create avoidable confusion” appearing for STF in Court monitoring proceedings.

 

 

(iv)           Complaint of Cognizable offence dated 23.03.2015 to SIT with a copy to Head of STF, after the verification and substantiating tampering of evidence by Truth Labs, Bangalore for adding name of additional accused in the investigation of FIR-19-20/2013 and for adding offences under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120-B against Sh. Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh and the concerned officers of Indore Police along with principal offences. Truth Lab Bangalore has a governing body comprising of eminent personalities of the nation and their credibility is vouched for by the investigating agencies and Superior Courts. The expert from Truth lab is also willing to assist the investigation if called upon.

 

              Further the information letter/summon of STF was not as per the procedure prescribed in CrPC. The letter was not a summon under Section 160 or 161 of CrPC after registration of a crime and why no action has been taken by SIT till this date on the representations filed by the Petitioner from time to time. The SIT in presence of the counsels of Petitioners candidly accepted that they are incapacitated “to go into the facts” and are helpless in the matter.

 

cc.        That on 16.04.2015, the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction in W.P. 6385/2014 passed an order and forwarded the documents provided by the Counsel of the Whistleblower in W.P. (Crl) No. 334/2014 filed before Delhi High Court to SIT VYAPAM cases Bhopal to submit a response in context of the documents on or before 23.04.2015 and fixed next date of hearing on 24.04.2015.  A copy of Order dated 16.04.2015 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-12. (Pgs ___ to ___)

 

dd.           That on 22.04.2015, the SIT on basis of the demonstration given by STF staff gave a prima facie opinion that the material appears to be forged with the intention to mislead the investigating agency in Crime No. 539/2013 registered at Rajendra Nagar Police Station Indore. It is submitted that the SIT made no effort to contact the Whistleblower or the Truth lab, Bangalore regarding the material. No effort was made to verify the contents of pen drive by sending it to a central forensic laboratory at Hyderabad or Chandigarh and a prima facie opinion was given on basis of the demonstration of STF staff. The STF technical team is ill equipped to deal with the forensic nuances of evidence and the prima facie opinion is based on their demonstration.

 

 

ee.           That on 23.04.2015 The STF takes statement of the Petitioner in Bhopal in relation to representations dated 06.12.2014, 15.02.2015, 25.02.2015 and 23.03.2015 filed by Petitioner before SIT VYAPAM cases.

 

ff.           That on 23.04.2015, the STF on the same day after taking statement of Petitioner herein issues summon to the whistleblower in light of the statement of Petitioner given to STF. The STF wanted to justify its investigation in the Complaint of tampering of evidence/Excel Sheet which was filed as evidence with the Charge sheet in Crime No. 19/2013 and 20/2013.

 

gg.           That on 24.04.2015, the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction in W.P. 6385/2014 passed an order accepting the prima facie opinion of SIT on the demonstration given by STF staff that the material supplied by the Whistleblower appears to be forged in order to mislead the investigating agencies. It is to be pointed out that the High Court of M.P. did not question the basis of the inquiry of the SIT, as the prima facie opinion of SIT is based on no investigation, no analysis or evaluation by a reputed Central Forensic lab, neither the whistleblower nor anyone from Truth lab was called or questioned regarding the contents. A copy of the Order dated 24.04.2015 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-13. (pgs ___ to ___)

 

hh.           That on 26.04.2015, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh held a press conference at his residence, and made remarks about the Petitioner that the Petitioner had provided “forged and fabricated document” to mislead the investigation. The same was widely reported in all the newspapers of Madhya Pradesh.

 

ii.            That, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 27.04.2015 apropos to the report of SIT to the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur qua prima facie opinion that the contents of pen drive submitted by the Whistleblower appears to be the forged with an intent to mislead investigation the petitioner herein submitted a detailed letter expressing/ highlighting discrepancies which were overlooked by the SIT.  A copy of the Letter dated 27.04.2015 of the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-14. (Pgs ___ to ___)

 

9.           That the present Petitioner has not filed any other Petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India or in any other court on the subject matter of the instant Petition and if the reliefs as prayed for him are granted, the petitioner’s redressal will be complete, effectual and will meet the ends of the justice. The source of knowledge of the facts as alleged in the present writ petition are self-enquiry, records of Court proceedings, reports and newspaper articles.

 

GROUNDS

A.       FOR THAT the authenticity of the material provided by the whistleblower could have been examined and evaluated only by a specialised Central forensic laboratory as the STF staff is not trained and ill equipped to give an opinion on the forensic nuances of electronic evidence and on the veracity of the material.  

 

B.       FOR THAT the SIT and High Court did not call upon either the whistleblower or the representative of truth lab Bangalore to ascertain the authenticity of the material or the examination conducted by truth labs to come to the conclusion that the material/excel sheet which is part of the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 19/2013 and Crime No. 20/2013 is a tampered one.

 

C.       FOR THAT the Petitioner was not called upon by the SIT after the Petitioner had submitted the certified report of truth lab and pen drive of the whistleblower vide Complaint dated 23.03.2015. No action was taken by the SIT on any of the representations submitted by the Petitioner.

 

D.       FOR THAT the report dated 22.04.2015 and order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was prepared and passed respectively in absence of the Petitioner herein.

E.       FOR THAT the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction has given prima facie finding of fact regarding the authenticity of the material submitted by the whistleblower without any application of mind and on basis of a report submitted by SIT.

 

F.        FOR THAT the order of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction on finding of fact will subvert any investigation which the investigation agency might have undertaken regarding tampering of evidence by Indore police and beneficiary being the Chief Minister.

 

G.       FOR THAT just after the order passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction regarding finding of fact, the Chief Minister held a press conference, at his residence, which was reported in various newspapers. The Chief Minister rejoicing and elated that a clean chit has been given by High Court and the Petitioner has fabricated and forged documents to mislead investigation.

H.       FOR THAT the actions of SIT, High Court of M.P. and the press conference of the Chief Minister has caused loss of reputation to the Petitioner which is a fundamental right under the constitution of India. At present the Petitioner who has held high public offices and had been in service of people of Madhya Pradesh is being projected as someone who has “forged and fabricated evidence”.

 

I.         FOR THAT the prima facie opinion of SIT is based on the demonstration given by STF (technical staff), which is not a forensic laboratory.

 

J.        FOR THAT instead of submitting the material provided by the whistleblower to a reputed central laboratory for examination and opinion the SIT and the STF itself adorned the mantle of a forensic laboratory and gave a prima facie opinion that the material is forged and fabricated.

 

 

K.       FOR THAT the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur instead of taking a stern view on the report of SIT which stems from a demonstration of incompetent STF staff accepted the prima facie opinion of the SIT.

 

L.        FOR THAT the newspapers are flooded with the statements of Chief Minister that the Petitioner herein had submitted a forged excel sheet to mislead investigation.

 

P R A Y E R

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a)           Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction, in the form or of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 and report dated 22.04.2015 of Special Investigation Team VYAPAM cases giving prima facie opinion that the material provided by the Petitioner herein is “fabricated and forged to mislead the investigation”;

b)           Issue or pass any writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus for sending the incriminating material and truth laboratory report provided by the Petitioner for examination, analysis and authentication by a Central forensic laboratory;

 

c)           Issue or pass any writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus for transferring investigation of Crime No. 539/2013 lodged at Police Station Rajendra nagar, District Indore and other VYAPAM scam cases for fair and impartial investigation to CBI or any other central agency;

 

d)            Issue or pass any writ, direction or order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

 

RAKHI RAY          

                    ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN ON:        

FILED ON:        

NEW DELHI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO.            OF 2015

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.          OF 2015

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. DIGVIJAYA SINGH                                            ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                            ...RESPONDENTS

 

APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE DIRECTIONS

 

To,

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named-

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

 

1.           That, the Petitioner is a Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha and had been Chief Minister of State of Madhya Pradesh for 10 years. The Petitioner is a public figure and had been serving the State of Madhya Pradesh for last 40 years. As a man of impeccable integrity the Petitioner is being subjected to humiliation as allegedly being an accomplice to someone who had “fabricated and forged evidence” in VYAPAM cases to mislead the investigation. The Petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India.

 

2.           That the instant application is being filed seeking interim orders in respect of issue the authenticity of the material provided by the whistleblower could have been examined and evaluated only by a specialised Central forensic laboratory as the STF staff is not trained and ill equipped to give an opinion on the forensic nuances of electronic evidence and on the veracity of the material.

 

3.           That SIT and High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur did not call upon either the whistleblower or the representative of truth lab Bangalore to ascertain the authenticity of the material or the examination conducted by truth labs to come to the conclusion that the material/excel sheet which is part of the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 19/2013 and Crime No. 20/2013 is a tampered one.

4.           That, the Petitioner was not called upon by the SIT after the Petitioner had submitted the certified report of truth lab and pen drive of the whistleblower vide Complaint dated 23.03.2015. No action was taken by the SIT on any of the representations submitted by the Petitioner.

 

5.           That the report dated 22.04.2015 and order dated 24.04.2015 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur was prepared and passed respectively in absence of the Petitioner herein.

 

6.           That, the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its Monitoring jurisdiction has given prima facie finding of fact regarding the authenticity of the material submitted by the whistleblower without any application of mind and on basis of a report submitted by SIT.

 

7.           That the order of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction on finding of fact will subvert any investigation which the investigation agency might have undertaken regarding tampering of evidence by Indore police and beneficiary being the Chief Minister.

 

 

8.           That just after the order passed by High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in its monitoring jurisdiction regarding finding of fact, the Chief Minister held a press conference, at his residence, which was reported in various newspapers. The Chief Minister rejoicing and elated that a clean chit has been given by High Court and the Petitioner has fabricated and forged documents to mislead investigation.

 

9.           That the actions of SIT, High Court of M.P. and the press conference of the Chief Minister has caused loss of reputation of the Petitioner which is a fundamental right under the constitution of India. At present the Petitioner who has held high public offices and had been in service of people of Madhya Pradesh is being projected as someone who has “forged and fabricated evidence”.

 

10.       That the prima facie opinion of SIT is based on the demonstration given by STF (technical staff), which is not a forensic laboratory.

 

11.       That the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has a good prima facie case and hopes to succeed before this Hon’ble Court.

12.       That grave and irreparable prejudice is being caused to the interest of the public at large with each passing day.

 

13.       That the instant application is being made bona fide in the interest of justice.

 

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a)       Stay order dated 24.04.2015 passed by High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. 6385/2014 and report dated 22.04.2015 of Special Investigation Team VYAPAM cases giving prima facie opinion that the material provided by the Petitioner herein is “fabricated and forged to mislead the investigation;

(b)       Direct, the incriminating material and truth laboratory report  provided by the Petitioner shall be sent for examination, analysis and authentication by a Central forensic laboratory;

 

(c)       Direct Respondent No. 1 to transfer investigation of Crime No. 539/2013 lodged at Police Station Rajendra nagar, District Indore and other VYAPAM scam cases for fair and impartial investigation to CBI or any other central agency;

 

 

(d)       Pass any other or further order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

RAKHI RAY          

                    ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN BY:

DRAWN ON:        

FILED ON:        

NEW DELHI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.                OF 2015

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. DIGVIJAYA SINGH                                            ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS                                        ...RESPONDENTS

 

 

I.A. NO.                    OF 2015

 

APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE DIRECTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

PAPERBOOK

[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

 

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MRS. RAKHI RAY