CPIL reponse to CJIs comments

1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 382 OF 2014
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ..… THE PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA &ORS ..… THE RESPONDENTS
SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUES AND QUERIES
ABOUT CPIL RAISED BY THE HON’BLE COURT
1. In view of certain observations and questions raised by the Court at the
hearing on 12.01.2016 of the above petition, it is essential to clarify
matters and present to the Court full and correct facts. It is respectfully
requested that the following submissions be taken into consideration.
PILs and the Indian Vision
2. This Hon’ble Court is well aware of the extensive public interest litigation
done by CPIL and is cognizant of the huge impact of its landmark
decisions in the matters agitated by CPIL. In not one of the CPIL matters
has this Hon’ble Court questioned the bona fides of CPIL. In not even a
single CPIL matter has this Court found the petitions of CPIL motivated. In
not even one of the cases did the Court find CPIL acting on behalf of a
party having a vested interest.
3. The great renown and reputation enjoyed by the Indian Judiciary owes
immensely to the development and expansion of public interest jurisdiction
by the past visionary judges of the Supreme Court.This development and
expansion owes a great debt to the Indian media which has championed
the cause of underprivileged, and has exposed mis-governance and
corruption. CPIL has been in the forefront of this movement. In recent
years, it has secured from this Hon’ble Court many a landmark decision,
e.g. the delineation of the concept of institutional integrity in the CVC case,
and the development of a framework for allocation of national resources in
accordance with the Constitutional principles of trusteeship and equity

2. inthe 2G scam case.These decisions have strengthened the institutions of
governance and greatly advanced the cause of probity in public life. In the
2G scam case, the detriment caused to the public exchequer by reason of
corruption has in a large measure been redressed, thanks to the auctions
under the directions of the Supreme Court.
4. These events have emboldened certain sections of the media, particularly
the Reliance Group media entities, to carry inaccurate and biased reports
designed to impair the credibility of CPIL. Firstpost.com, which is
admittedly owned by Reliance, in a report dated 13.01.2016 titled as “CJI
Thakur takes Prashant Bhushan's 'proxy interest litigation' head on”
wrongly stated as under: “Bhushan said a committee comprising senior
counsel Fali Nariman, Anil Divan,Kamini Jaiswal, Shanti Bhushan and
himself scrutinises any PIL before it is filed”. This is not a correct reporting
of events which occurred in theCourt. The factual position has been
communicated by ShriPrashant Bhushan to Firstpost.comas follows.
“The Editor
Firstpost.Com
In the report published on your website on 12.01.2016, you have reported
the observations made by the Chief Justice of India made during the
hearing of petition filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)
against the grant of voice telephony to Reliance on 4G spectrum at 2001
price. I was the advocate for CPIL in the said petition wherein CJI raised
certain queries regarding the functioning of CPIL. In response to the said
queries, I had explained the mechanism and system followed by CPIL for
deciding on the PILs that are to be filed in court. I had stated that there is
a sub-committee of 5 advocates: Mr. Anil Divan, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr.
Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and myself who decides on the PILs
to be filed by the society. I had also mentioned the names of certain
senior advocates like Mr. Fali S Nariman who are the founding members
of CPIL and are also part of its governing body. Your paper has
misreported the court proceedings and has stated that Mr. Nariman is
part of the committee which decides on filing of PILs. That is not what I
had said and it not correct. The Governing Council of CPIL of which Mr.
Nariman is a member has authorized the sub-committee to decide on the
PILs to be filed. In the meeting dated 4/1/13 attended and si gned by 11
members of the governing Council including Mr. Nariman, it was
resolved:
That we hereby resolve that in accordance with Rule 4 (b) (1)
of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, we continue and
appoint the same Sub-Committee of the following members
which was appointed on 4/5/03 to decide the petitions that
will be filed on behalf of the Society in any court of the
country.
1. Mr. Anil Divan

3. 2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan
3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves
4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal
5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan
We also reaffirm and continue the appointment of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal as
Secretary of the Society who is authorized to sign the Vakalatnama and
affidavits on behalf of the Society. She can act to file cases after
consulting the aforesaid subcommittee either telephonically or by emails.
We further confirm and resolve to authorize Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant
Bhushan to decide whom to engage for appearing in and arguing cases
before the courts, in consultation with the President, Mr. Anil Divan. We
confirm and ratify all acts done by them in filing and pursuit of PILs filed
by them on behalf of the society.”
Mr Nariman has not been a member of the sub-committee and therefore
he had not scrutinized the petition filed against Reliance. Moreover, I had
never stated that he had done so. However your incorrect reporting has
caused serious confusion and damage to the reputation of CPIL and
myself.
Kindly carry this clarification on your website as prominently as your news
report.
Prashant Bhushan”
5. ShriDhananjayMahapatra of the Times of India has clarified in an email
dated 15.01.2016 addressed to Shri Prashant Bhushan as under:
“Prashant Bhai,
We have never said in our January 14th
report that Nariman was
part of the committee which scrutinizes the PILs. We had just said
that Nariman was part of the founding members of the CPIL.
The next day’s report was based on a letter received from
Nariman’s office.
Dhananjay. “
6. Mail Today has issued a clarification on 17.01.2016 which is as under:
“In the report “Bhushan’s PIL draws CJI’s wrath’ (January 13), it was
wrongly mentioned that noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan had told the
Supreme Court that senior lawyer Fali S Nariman was part of the sub-
committee which decides on PILs to be filed by NGO Centre for Public
Interest Litigation (CPIL). It is made clear that Nariman, a founder member
of the CPIL is only a member of its governing council which has authorized
a sub-committee to decide on the PILs to be filed. Nariman is not part of
the panel which vets the PILs. He also did not scrutinize the petition

4. against Reliance which was being heard by the Supreme Court. We regret
the error.”
7. It was the Mail Today’s report which ShriFali Nariman had cited in his
letter to the Registrar General dated 14.01.2016 stating that he was not
involved in vetting the PILs filed by CPIL. In view of the confusion created
due to wrong reporting,Shri Nariman has now resigned from CPIL.
8. As clarified in detail hereinafter, Shri Fali Nariman was not a member of
the sub-committee which decides on filing of PILs, but he wasa founder
member and was a member of the governing body of CPIL. It is hereby
affirmed that any impression that Shri Nariman had scrutinized the
petitions filed by CPIL, including the present petition, is incorrect.
9. In the light of these developments, at an urgent meeting of the CPIL’s
governing body, the following resolution was passed on 15.01.2016:
“That the Governing Body of CPIL met today to take stock of certain
observations made by the Hon’ble CJI in 4G case (WPC 382 of 2014) on
12.01.2016 which were widely reported in the media.
That the governing body decided that CPIL must place its submissions
before the court in response to the said observations by the Hon’ble CJI.
That the submissions would be finalized by the Sub-Committee which is
already in place for deciding the PILs to be filed by CPIL.”
10.In view of the foregoing, the petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court
to file these submissions to address the queries concerning the
background of the petitioner, the system followed by the Petitioner in filing
PILs, the scrutiny of the information received and other related issues.
About the petitioner
11.CPIL was established as a registered society by its founder President,
Late Shri V M Tarkunde.It was registered on 19.06.1984.The object of the
visionary Justice V M Tarkunde was to put in place with the help of public
spirited lawyers a structure which would give voice to the voiceless,enable
them to enjoy access to justice, and take up issues involving serious
public interest before the Court.Underlying this initiative was the conviction
that most citizens/individuals would not have the energy, financial
resources, time and opportunity to assert their collective rights, especially

5. when confronted by vested interests. Many would be intimidated by
powerful lobbies and afraid of being victimized. They would lack the
courage to come out openly against wielders of power and authority.
The aims and objects for which the Society was established include:
 “To carry out research into the area of public interest
litigation in India and also to undertake/support such litigation
with a view to ascertain its proper scope and ambit and the
precautions to be taken in order that it may promote public
interest and may not be counter-productive;
 To provide assistance, legal and monetary, in the matter of
filing and conducting public interest litigation in different
Courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court and the Delhi
High Court;
 To popularize public interest litigation as a means of
promoting public welfare, particularly of the poor and the
needy;”
12.The settled practice adopted by CPIL is as under:
ShriPrashant Bhushan with the assistance of his juniors and after
discussions with Ms. Kamini Jaiswal looks into and scrutinizes carefully
the materials on which a potential PIL is to be drafted. If the material
comes from a doubtful source, it is examined with suspicion and utmost
care. On the basis of the quality of the material, e.g. CAG reports,
documents obtained under RTI, or supplied by whistleblowers, journalists
or others, a considered decision is taken to go ahead or not with the
petition. The majority of the litigation proposals coming to CPIL are
rejected, sinceit is felt that the material is doubtful, or the matter does not
raise a major issue of public importance. In fact, Shri Prashant Bhushan
and at least three of his juniors are spending the bulk of their time in
scrutinizing PIL proposals and the material which comes with
them.Thereafter, the members of the sub-committee which decides
whether to file the PIL or not, are consulted personally or on
telephone/email and accordingly the proposed PIL is either filed or
dropped. This practice has been approved and ratified by the Resolution
dated 04.01.2013which has been filed in this Hon’ble Court through
affidavit dated 09.01.2013 in WPC 505/2012, titled as CPIL v. UOI and
Ors. (re. RAW, IB matter). The said resolution specifically states that “She

6. (i.e. Kamini Jaiswal) can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid
sub-committee either telephonically or by emails.”
13.In the petitions filed by CPIL, affidavits in support have mainly been filed
by the General Secretary. This position has been held byShriAshok Panda
and MsKamini Jaiswal. In fact, it is settled practice of this Hon’ble Court
that PILs may be entertained on mere letters, press reports,suomotu, etc.
on the basis of the credibility and quality of the information and the
standing of the petitioner. CPIL states that in the present case no
material has been received from any business rival or competitor.
CPIL has adhered to and stands by the practice of filing properly
documented petitions supported by the affidavit of the Secretaryin
accordance with the settled practice ratified by the Resolution dated
04.01.2013.
14.It needs to be pointed out that it is settled law that it is not as if petitions
filed by political rivals or interested individuals would be automatically
rejected, but it is the quality of the material, evidence and nature of the
controversy which triggers and invites the interest of the court in
entertaining a PIL. In this connection, the following authority may be cited:
VishwanathChaturvedi v. UOI (2007) 4 SCC 380 at Pg 394-395,
Extracts of para 37 and 39:
“37. The ultimate test, in our view, therefore is whether the allegations
have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the
threshold because a political opponent of a person with political
differences raises an allegation of commission of offence…
39. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the
PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioner’s interest. In our view, it is
wrong in law for the court to judge the petitioner’s interest without
looking into the subject-matter of his complaint and if the petitioner
shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing
the PIL.”
15.It may be mentioned that in Vineet Narain vs. UOI (Jain Hawala case)
reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226, the petitioners were Vineet Narain (a
journalist), Rajinder Puri (a Journalist and Cartoonist), Kamini Jaiswal and
Prashant Bhushan. The petition relied upon photocopies of the Jain diaries

7. which prima facie implicated powerful individuals and averred that they
were in possession of CBI. It was an allegation and no source was
disclosed. Yet notice was issued to CBI which was forced to admit the
existence and contents of the Jain diaries. It was on the strength of the
existence and content of the diaries seized by the CBI that the whole
litigation went forward. Eventually,this Hon’ble Court established
standards, norms and principles of good governance and public probity
which have been widely followed.
16.The Governing Body of the society in a meeting held on 05.10.1996 had
constituted a sub-committee of five members for deciding the causes to be
taken up and their names were as follows:
(i) Late Mr. V. M. Tarkunde
(ii) Mr. Anil B Divan
(iii) Mr. Shanti Bhushan
(iv) Mr. Rajinder Sachar
(v) Late Mr. H. D. Shourie.
17.The aforementioned sub-committee was re-constituted in the meeting of
the Governing Body held on 04.05.2003. The members of the sub-
committee to decide about issues/cases were as follows:
1. Mr. Anil Divan (President of CPIL)
2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan
3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves
4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary of CPIL)
5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan
18.In WPC 505 of 2012 filed by CPIL seeking accountability of intelligence
agencies, this Hon’ble Court had directed the petitioner to place an
authorization on behalf of the society for filing the petition. Hence,
ameeting of the governing body of CPIL was convened on 04.01.2013 in
which following resolution was passed:
“That we hereby resolve that in accordance with Rule 4 (b) (1) of
the Rules and Regulations of the Society, we continue and
appoint the same Sub-Committee of the following members
which was appointed on 4/5/03 to decide the petitions that will
be filed on behalf of the Society in any court of the country.
1. Mr. Anil Divan

8. 2. Mr. Shanti Bhushan
3. Mr. Colin Gonsalves
4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal
5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan
We also reaffirm and continue the appointment of Ms. Kamini
Jaiswal as Secretary of the Society who is authorized to sign
the Vakalatnama and affidavits on behalf of the Society. She
can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid
subcommittee either telephonically or by emails. We further
confirm and resolve to authorize Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant
Bhushan to decide whom to engage for appearing in and
arguing cases before the courts, in consultation with the
President, Mr. Anil Divan. We confirm and ratify all acts done
by them in filing and pursuit of PILs filed by them on behalf of
the society. In particular, we approve & ratify the filing of writ
petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court (W.P.C. 505/2012) and the
contents of the said petition which deals with the accountability of
the intelligence agencies of the Government (i.e. RAW, IB &
NTRO).”
A photocopy of the resolution dated 04.01.2013 is annexed hereto as
Annexure A(Page __________).The members who signed this
resolution included:
a) Mr. Anil B Divan (President)
b) Mr. Rajinder Sachar
c) Mr. Fali S Nariman
d) Mr. Shanti Bhushan
e) Mr. Colin Gonsalves
f) Mr. Prashant Bhushan
g) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary)
h) Mr. Ashok Panda
i) Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal
j) Late Admiral R H Tahiliani
k) Mr. AnoopSaraya
19.CPIL had filed an application for the removal of the then CBI Director
from the 2G case (IA 73 filed in CA 10660 of 2010) in which a copy of the
entry register of the residence of the CBI Director was filed. This Hon’ble

9. Court vide order dated 15.09.2014 directed as under“In our opinion, before
we pass any order on the affidavit at the first instance, we request Shri
Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel to disclose the source of his
information to us which has formed the basis of the averments and
allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The information
that will be disclosed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel shall be
kept in a sealed cover and to be opened by this Court only.”
20.A governing body meeting of CPIL was convened on 17.09.2014 to
discuss the course of action in which it was unanimously resolved that
CPIL would not disclose the name of the source. The resolution inter-alia
states: “CPIL continuously receives important information and documents
from a large number of sources who wish to keep their identity secret. Any
disclosure of identity in one case is likely to deter sources in other cases.
Therefore, the identity of the source can be revealed only if the person
concerned agrees in writing to such a disclosure.”A copy of the resolution
passed by governing body of CPIL dated 17.09.2014 is annexed as
Annexure B(Pg_________). Thereafter, this Hon’ble Court, vide order
dated 20.11.2014, recalled its earlier order dated 15.09.2014 and allowed
the application filed by CPIL. The relevant part of the said order dated
20.11.2014 passed in CA 10660/2010 reads thus: “(i) We recall our earlier
order passed on 15.09.2014 so far as it relates to I.A. No.73 of 2014. (ii)
We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to interfere in the
investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G spectrum
allocation that is carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the
case.”
21.The role played by the petitioner CPIL was recognized and acknowledged
by this Hon’ble Court in the 2G scam case while cancelling the licenses.
This Hon’ble Court in the judgment of Centre for Public Interest Litigation
&Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1 stated:
“Before concluding, we consider it imperative to observe that but for
the vigilance of some enlightened citizens who held important
constitutional and other positions and discharged their duties in
larger public interest and Non GovernmentalOrganisations who have
been constantly fighting for clean governance and accountability of
the constitutional institutions, unsuspecting citizens and the Nation
would never have known how the scarce natural resource spared by Army

10. has been grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been
able to manipulate the system. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed
in the following terms: The licences granted to the private respondents on
or after 10.1.2008 pursuant to two press releases issued on 10.1.2008 and
subsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees are declared illegal and
are quashed.”
Source of information/documents
22.The offices of Shri Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal generally
view documents coming from non-independent sources with great care,
but, if the information appears credible and shows evidence of serious
harm to public interest which needs intervention by the Court, then the
same isappropriately used in the PIL. This is done after a dispassionate
and objective analysis about its credibility.
23.Speaking generally in respect of PILs, if information coming from
interested persons, having important bearing on public interest, were left
to be litigated by those persons, there would be serious detriment to public
interest on account of the following:
a) lack of expertise and due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings,
b) premature withdrawal of the petition in case the petitioner has been
won over and thus subverting the public interest issue,
c) the risk of summary dismissal by the court on the ground that he is
trying to promote his personal interest.
Moreover, most people who have to deal with the government are
reluctant to go to court against the government as they may be adversely
affected in their dealings with the government in future. They are also
apprehensive about intimidation, reprisal and violence.
24.CPIL was formed precisely for the purpose of taking up PILs in an
organized manner purely in public interest. Over the years, CPIL has
established its credentials as a genuine public interest organization by dint

11. of an array of PILs filed before this Hon’ble Court and before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
25.CPIL has not solicited any donations.The lawyers who pursue cases for
CPIL do it pro bono. Out of pocket expenses, like court fees, photocopying
and typing charges, are defrayed from the contributions made by the
members.The junior advocates who assist in filing PILs work in the
chambers of Shri Prashant Bhushan or Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and are
remunerated by them personally. They are not paid out of CPIL’s funds.
26.Some of the important PILs filed so far by the CPIL are recapitulated
below..
S.No. PIL Name Summary Status
1. CPIL and ors vs
Union of India
&Ors (CA 10660
of 2010)
Petition sought court
monitored investigation
into the 2G spectrum
allocation scam
This Hon’ble Court is
monitoring the 2G
investigations for the last
5 years and had also
directed the then CBI
Director to recuse
himself from the case
vide order dated
20.11.2014
2. CPIL and ors vs
Union of India
&Ors (WPC 423
of 2010)
Petition sought
cancellation of 2G
spectrum allocation and
122 telecom licenses
awarded in 2008
This Hon’ble Court
cancelled the entire
allocation of 2G
spectrum and 122
telecom licenses, and
directed fresh auction
vide its judgment
reported in (2012) 3 SCC
1
3. CPIL and Anr.vs
Union of India
&Anr (WPC 348
of 2010)
Petition sought setting
aside the appointment of
the then CVC on the
ground of appointee’s lack
of integrity
This Hon’ble Court
quashed the
appointment of the
Central Vigilance
Commissioner and laid
down an important legal
principle of “institutional
integrity” vide its
judgment reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 1
4. CPIL vs Union of
India (WPC 16 of
2011)
Petition sought that all
intercepted conversations
of Ms. NiiraRadia be put in
public domain since they
show criminality, influence
of corporates in
formulating public policies
This Hon’ble Court by an
interim order directed the
CBI to conduct
preliminary inquiries on
the basis of the petition
filed by the CPIL. The
petition is pending.
5. CPIL v Registrar This petition challenged This Hon’ble Court had

12. General of the
High Court of
Delhi, WP (C)
514/2015
the entire selection
process and evaluation
method adopted in Main
(Written) Examination of
Delhi Judicial Service,
2014 (DJS) on the
grounds of being
unreasonable, arbitrary
and hence, in violation of
Article 14 of the
Constitution.
ordered for re-evaluation
of the papers of those
candidates who were
successful in preliminary
examination but were not
called for interview. The
petition is pending.
6. CPIL V.
UOI &ors
CWP No.
171 of
2003
This petition was filed
before this Hon’ble Court
in 2003 challenging the
legality of the
Government’s decision to
disinvest and thus
privatize the Govt. Oil
Companies namely HPCL
and BPCL without seeking
the approval from the
Parliament and also
without amending the
Parliamentary enactments
by which these companies
had been nationalized.
Disinvestment was
disallowed by this
Hon’ble Court without
parliament approval.
Judgment reported as
(2003) 7 SCC 532
7. CPIL V.
Housing and
Urban
Development
Corporation
&ors
CWP No. 573 of
2003
This petition has been filed
to bring to the notice of
this Hon’ble Court the
action of the Officials of
HUDCO in arbitrarily
granting loans for political
and extraneous
considerations without
going in to the merit of
each case and even
ignoring prescribed /
established procedures,
appraisal norms and
financial prudence
including the advice of
Board members.
This Hon’ble Court had
referred the matter to the
CVC for investigation
and the CVC had
submitted detailed report.
Petition is Pending
8. CWP No.
21of2004, Titled
as CPIL V. UOI
&ors
This petition was filed
before this Hon’ble Courtin
2004
challengingtheconstitution
alityofSubSection
(c)ofSection 26 of
theCentralVigilanceCommi
ssionAct, 2003
introducingSection
6AtoDelhiSpecialPoliceEst
ablishmentAct, 1946,
which requires prior
approvalof the designated
authority to initiate the
This matter had been
referred to the
Constitution bench.The
Petition was thereafter
allowed by the
Constitution Bench.
Section 6A was declared
ultra vires.
Reported in (2014) 8
SCC 682

13. inquiry or investigation
against certain officers of
the Government and
Public Sector
Undertakings (PSU’s),
nationalised banks etc
above a certain level.
9. CPIL V.
UOI &ors
CWP No.
180 of
2004
Thispetitionhas beenfiledin
theSupremeCourtin2004
tochallengetheconstitution
alityofthePresidentialOrder
1950
accordingtowhichonlythem
embers of
scheduledcastesfromHind
u,BuddhistandSikhreligion
sarebenefitted and the
converts from
Christianity/Islam are
denied the benefits.
The matter was referred
by the Government to
Justice Ranganath
Mishra Commission in
2005. The Commission
has submitted its report
before this Hon’ble Court
supporting the
Petitioner’s prayers. The
matter is still Pending
10. CPIL V. UOI
CWPNo. 197 Of
2004
This petition was filed in
the Supreme Court in
2004 seeking directions
and guidelines to check
the misuse of thousands of
crores of public funds
which is taking place at the
hands of the Central
government, the State
Governments, and the
agencies and corporations
controlled by them and by
other public bodies, by
means of advertisements
issued in the print and
electronic media which are
being used to project
personalities, political
parties and particular
governments.
Petition has been
allowed with specific
directions to the
Government for stopping
misuse of public funds on
such advertisements.
Reported as (2015) 7
SCC 1
11. CPILV.UOI&ors
CWPNo. 681 Of
2004
This petition was regarding
harmful effects of various
chemical additives which
are deliberately added by
the soft drink
manufacturers in the soft
drinks. In this Petition
directions were sought for
proper regulation of the
ingredients of the soft
drinks, their full
disclosures and also for
Disposed of with certain
directions to the Food
and Safety Authority of
India. Reported as
(2013) 16 SCC 279. This
Hon’ble Court also
directed that only
independent experts be
appointed to food safety
authority.

14. proper regulation of their
advertisements.
12. CivilWrit Petition
387/2005, CPIL
V. UOI &Ors.
This Petition was filed to
challenge the appointment
of Neera Yadav
astheChiefSecretaryofUtta
rPradeshdespitetherebein
gseveralcorruptioncasespe
ndingagainsther.
She was ordered to be
removed from the post of
the Chief Secretary by
this Hon’ble Court vide
judgment reported in
(2005) 8 SCC 202.
13. CWP 6426/2006,
CPIL &ors. Vs.
UOI &ors.
This Petition was filed for
proper and complete
investigation into the
allegation of the
involvement of the
middlemen and payment
of bribes in the
procurement of Scorpene
submarines.
The Hon’ble High Court
had directed the CBI to
register PE. The CBI,
pursuant to the said
direction, filed its report
in a sealed cover. The
HC, on the basis of the
said PE report but
without sharing the same
with the Petitioner,
disposed of the writ
petition.
14. CPIL v UOI, WP
(C) 505 of 2012
The petition is for
accountability of the
government’s three
intelligence agencies
namely Intelligence
Bureau
(IB), Research and
Analysis Wing (RAW) and
National Technical
Research Organisation
(NTRO) which have been
created by simply
executive orders without
any statutory support. The
petition seeks setting up of
a proper mechanism,
following the models
of other democratic
countries, so that
accountability of these
government’s
could be ensured.
This Hon’ble Court has
issued notice. The case
is Pending.
15. CPIL v Union of
India &ors. CWP
No. 991/2013
The Petition has sought a
thorough and independent
investigation into
allegations of various
misdemeanours and
breach of laws by M/s.
Pricewaterhousecoopers
Pvt. Ltd and their various
network Audit Firms
operating in India sharing
the brand name of Pwc
and providing audit and
This Hon’ble Court has
issued notice. The
matter is Pending

15. advisory services.
16. CPIL v UOI,
CWP 1815 of
2015
This writ petition has been
filed before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi
seeking direction for
expeditious investigation
of corruption cases in
AIIMS by the CBI, as well
seeking disciplinary
proceedings that were
recommended by the
former CVO, AIIMS.
The case is Pending.
CVC and CBI have
pursuant to the direction
of the Court filed their
respective status reports.
17. CPIL v Chairman
Rajya Sabha and
orsCWP No.
4000 of 2015
The petition has sought to
challenge the validity of
Clause 6 A of the Rajya
Sabha Secretariat
(Methods of Recruitment
and Qualifications for
Appointment) Order, 2009
(hereinafter referred as
Order, 2009)
Pending before the Delhi
High Court
18. CPIL vs Union of
India WP (C)
2932/2012
Petition sought
independent review of
Kashmir railway alignment,
inter-alia, on the ground of
safety and survivability of
the present alignment.
Delhi High Court allowed
the petition and directed
the Central Government
to constitute an expert
committee to review the
Kashmir railway
alignment.
The expert committee
headed by Mr. E
Sreedharanin its report
accepted that the
present Kashmir Railway
alignment is faulty,
unsafe and the
alternative alignment
suggested by the
petitioner is better in
virtually all respects
19. CPIL vs. Union of
India WP (C)
8780/2009&
6813/2010
The Petition was filed
seeking a writ of
mandamus to the Union of
India to make reference
under Section 7 (1) of the
Prasar Bharti
(Broadcasting Corporation
of India) Act, 1990 to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court for
holding an inquiry against
Mr. Baljit Singh Lalli.
Despite the fact that the
CVC had clearly indicted
the said CEO of the Prasar
Bharti Board for various
financial irregularities and
The Hon’ble High Court
ordered CVC probe
which found him guilty.
This led to the
Government initiating the
process for his removal.

16. misuse of his office, the
govt. was not taking any
consequent action.
20. CPIL Vs. Union
of India CWP
4003/1995 &
4430/1995
PIL was filed seeking
cancellation of arbitrary
allotment of petrol pumps
through the Oil Selection
Boards.
The Hon’ble High Court
cancelled several
allotments against which
individual allottees
approached this Hon’ble
Court. Matters are still
pending
21. CPIL Vs. Union
of India WP (C)
No. 355 of 2011
The Petition was filed
seeking a writ of quo
warranto against the then
CEO & MD of IFCI to
remove him from the post
of CEO & MD of IFCI as
his appointment was
illegal; and seeking
investigation into various
allegations of
administrative and
financial irregularities in
IFCI and direction to direct
UOI to exercise its control
over the IFCI
During the pendency of
the petition, then CEO
and MD was forced
toresign by the
Government from the
post of the CMD, IFCI.
Pursuant to the petition,
the Government started
exercising its control over
the IFCI. Case is
Pending.
22. CPIL vs UOI
&Ors SLP (C)
25545 of 2012
Petition seeks
investigation by a SIT/CBI
into the purchase of over
100 aircrafts by Air India
causing enormous loss to
the national carrier.
This Hon’ble Court has
issued notice and the
matter is pending.
1) Anil B Divan (President, CPIL)
2) Shanti Bhushan
3) Colin Gonsalves
4) Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary, CPIL)
5) Prashant Bhushan
Dated 19.01.2016
New Delh