Common Cause Annual Report

(b) Comments on The Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill 2023

In January 2024, Common Cause submitted its comments on the Draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill 2023. Though the stated objective of the bill was to address the evolving landscape of the broadcasting industry, closer scrutiny revealed that its provisions could facilitate media censorship, and subjugate the freedom of expression and creative and artistic freedom in India. The text of the draft bill paved the ground for consistent monitoring and discouraging of ostensibly unfavourable (to the powers that be) relay of information, entertainment or artistic material while creating a chilling effect. The Indian broadcasting industry has emerged as one of the most dynamic and vibrant sectors in the country.

(c) Representation for Pedestrians’ Rights

On March 13, 2024, Common Cause made a representation to the authorities concerned to ensure a walkable pedestrian path for the citizens of Delhi. The representation highlighted the tragic deaths taking place in the country in general, and in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi in particular, due to the lack of proper facilities for pedestrians. It highlighted that Delhi not only has a high volume of pedestrian movement with 34% of all daily person trips being ‘walk-only’, but also these pedestrians are the most vulnerable category of road users, mostly belonging to socially vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Pedestrians have a fundamental right to life and liberty (Article 21) and a right to free movement (Article 19). Unfortunately, these rights are being denied to them owing to bad implementation of the policies protecting pedestrian rights, and the lack of accountability of the authorities implementing them.

Public Interest Litigation

Supreme Court Cases Illegal Mining in Odisha:

On February 23, 2023, Common Cause filed an IA focussed on directing the Union of India and the State of Odisha to impose limits on the extraction of minerals and on constituting a committee of two or three independent experts to suggest and recommend such limits and submit its report in a time-bound matter. The IA also asked for an updated status report about the amount of penalty deposited by the lessees, including the amount to be recovered, leasewise details of the ore reserve, extraction permitted, the current status of the mining lease, total iron ore reserves and total permitted extraction in the State as directed in judgment dated August 2, 2017.

The IA also sought complete details of the work done for the benefit of the tribal community in the affected districts and other area development works. As it involved public money in such a large quantity, the IA pointed out that the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) must fall under the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the audit accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the SPV must be provided to the Apex Court. The matter was taken up on February 27, 2023, where the Court directed the service of IA to the standing counsel for the Union of India. Subsequently, the matter was listed on March 17 and April 6, 2023, when the Court heard the IAs filed by the parties.

The matter was taken up several times between May and October 2023. The Court directed that the applicant mining company be granted three months to sell the iron ore in question, otherwise, the State was granted the liberty to do so. The Court directed that the amount so realized from the sale shall mandatorily be credited to the SPV in terms of the Court’s order dated August 2, 2017. In the meantime, the Court granted the State the liberty to simultaneously begin the process for conducting the auction of the Leasehold Area in accordance with law and also to proceed with the recovery of the dues.

On May 1, 2023, the Court noted that “from the perusal of the affidavit filed in response (Annexure A/1), it is clear that only a sum of Rs.305.32 Crores has been recovered in terms of compensation due from the defaulters. This is when the total amount of compensation is reckoned as 3308.35 Crores. It is clear that the balance amount excluding interest shown due is Rs.3003.03 Crores.

In its order of August 14, 2023, the Court’s direction was as follows:

  • “(i) The State Government shall take expeditious steps to pursue the recovery proceedings in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps by attaching the assets of the defaulting entities; and
  • (ii) Hereafter, the terms and conditions of the tender shall expressly clarify that no tender shall be entertained at the behest of an entity against which outstanding is due or companies in which the same promoters are interested.”

Our counsel, Mr Prashant Bhushan, highlighted the need for imposing a cap on mining in the State of Odisha as has been imposed both in respect of the States of Karnataka and Goa.

In the note submitted by him, in the context of the State of Odisha, the data on the record indicated that the yearly mining permissions cover 58 leases with permissible excavation to the extent of 227.13 million tonnes and the total reserves were 4748.52 million tonnes. He pointed out that as a consequence of this, the reserves are liable to come to an end within twenty years.

The State of Odisha submitted that the estimate of iron ore reserves on the geologically explored strata at present is 9220 million tonnes and there is a likelihood of this increasing in future. Given this, the UoI was directed to contemplate if a cap on mining was required and to determine the modalities for it. The UoI was also directed to examine the basis on which a cap was imposed in Karnataka and Goa and file its affidavit within eight weeks. In its order dated October 6, 2023, the Court directed that the defects pointed out by the Office in the report under consideration may be cured within three weeks, failing which the application for modification of the Court’s order dated February 27, 2023 shall stand dismissed. On December 4, 2023, in pursuance of the previous order dated August 14, 2023, an affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Mines, Govt of India. Since several aspects such as sustainable development and inter-generational equity were involved, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was directed to file an affidavit based on its independent assessment within four weeks. The State of Odisha was directed to file an affidavit within four weeks elaborating on the steps which had been taken to:

  • Recover the outstanding dues;
  • Attach the assets of the defaulters.

The State of Odisha was directed to specifically clarify in its affidavit, the extent of the recoveries which had been made after August 14, 2023, as well as indicate a specific timeline for the proposed action and the recovery of the dues. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines of the Government of Odisha was also directed to file an affidavit within two weeks, after due verification.

The matter was heard on January 12, 2024 and subsequently on February 2, 2024, the Court ordered the applicants to place on the record copies of all the permissions which have been received, including environmental clearances within the following week and provide the same within three days to Mr A D N Rao, the learned Amicus Curiae.

The matter was subsequently listed on November 13, 14, 20, and 28, 2024, when the counsels for the State of Odisha were directed to file a further affidavit, within three weeks, indicating the quantum of compensation etc. The matter is likely to be listed on January 21, 2025.

Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 1756 of 2022) by the Union of India seeking modification of the Supreme Court order in the Common Cause petition challenging re-appointment of the Director, ED: : The Union of India (Respondent No.1) filed a Miscellaneous Application in the Common Cause petition, WP(C) 1374 of 2020, challenging the re-appointment of the ED Director, for modifying the judgment dated September 8, 2021 of the Supreme Court. The modification application sought deletion of the following from the judgment:

“We make it clear that no further extension shall be granted to the second respondent”

The UoI claimed that based on the 5th proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(d) and Section 25(d) of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 as well as various pending petitions challenging the extension of the incumbent ED Director’s tenure, the above statement must be deleted from the judgment of the petition challenging the re-appointment of the ED Director.

This application was filed disguised as a Miscellaneous Application, instead of a review petition. Several precedents have established that the Supreme Court disapproves the practice of filing such Miscellaneous Applications seeking “modification” or “recall” or “clarification” in an attempt to bypass Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. In addition to this, the Supreme Court has also upheld that change in law or subsequent decisions by itself could not be grounds for review and such petitions shall be accordingly dismissed.

The matter was taken up on January 30, 2023, when the SC gave the Centre three weeks to respond to the petition filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur questioning the third extension given to the director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Sanjay Kumar Mishra, while also indicating that it will not entertain any review of its September 2021 judgment that directed against a further extension to Mishra based on the subsequent changes in the law. “Subsequent legislative change cannot be a ground to review our earlier order (passed on September 8, 2021),” said the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Vikram Nath.

The Solicitor General stated that the petitioner was extensively relying on the September 2021 judgment where the Centre moved an application seeking clarification/modification (MA) and requested for tagging these matters together. While refusing to entertain the MA, the Bench said, “We will not entertain such an application. It amounts to review of our order.” The Court ordered that WP 1106/2022, 456/2022, 204/2022 and MA be tagged together and posted the matter for hearing on February 27, 2023. The Court heard the counsels on March 21 and 23 and April 20, 2023. The Court concluded the hearing on May 8, 2023, and the judgment was reserved.

On July 11, 2023, the SC disposed of the batch of writ petitions as well as the MA and ruled that the central government extending the tenure of the director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is invalid and directed Sanjay Kumar Mishra to vacate the office by July 31, 2023. The court however upheld the validity of amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission Act conferring power on the central government to extend the tenure of ED director.

Petition to restrain the use of public funds for political campaign advertisements:

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated May 13, 2015, in Common Cause vs. UoI (2015) 7 SCC 1, had issued several guidelines aimed at regulating government advertisements to check the misuse of public funds by central and state governments. Despite the clear direction, states continued publishing advertisements, misusing public funds.

Common Cause filed a petition in 2022 to restrain the unnecessary use of public funds on government advertisements, in ways that are completely mala fide and arbitrary and amount to a breach of trust, abuse of office, violation of the directions/guidelines issued by this court and violation of fundamental rights of citizens. Noticing the unnecessary expenditure on advertising campaigns outside the territory of their respective states with no benefit to the target audience or prime beneficiaries of that government’s achievements, policies and welfare measures, six specific issues were pointed out in the petition:

  • Publication of advertisements by state governments outside the territorial limits of their respective states
  • Publication of government advertisements in the form of ‘advertorials’
  • Publication of government advertisements during/just before the elections
  • Issues concerning the ‘Committee on Content Regulation of Government Advertisements’ (CCRGA)
  • Publication of Photographs of functionaries on Government Advertisements
  • Advertisements in the name of Awareness Campaigns

Notice was issued on September 26, 2022, by Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli. Presently, the matter is pending before the Registrar. As only five states have filed their counter affidavit, on August 10, 2023, the respondents were given four weeks to file their counter-affidavits after which the court of the Registrar refused accepting counter-affidavits. On November 6, 2023, the court of the Registrar ordered to list the matter for hearing before the bench after four weeks but it has not been listed. It is likely to be listed on December 20, 2024.

Petition Challenging Constitutional Validity of Sedition: Sedition, a colonial law, used to suppress dissent by the colonial British rulers, continues to be heavily abused by the law enforcement authorities against citizens for exercising their freedom of speech and expression.

Common Cause filed a petition in 2021, challenging the constitutional validity of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), & 21 of the Constitution of India.

In Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, the constitutionality of this section was tested and upheld. The offence of sedition was presumed to be complete if the activities tended to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order or public peace.

In its welcome order on May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the use of the provision by governments. It suspended pending criminal trials and court proceedings under Section 124A (sedition) and allowed the Union of India to reconsider the colonial law.

The matter was taken up on May 1, 2023, when the Attorney General for India, stated that, in pursuance of the order dated May 11, 2022, the Government has initiated the process of re-examining the provisions of Section 124A of the IPC 1860 and the consultations are at a substantially advanced stage. On September 12, 2023, the Supreme Court declined the request of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to defer considering whether a reference should be made to a larger bench, on the ground that Parliament is in the process of re-enacting the provisions of the Penal Code and the Bill has been placed before a Standing Committee.

The court appointed advocates Prasanna S and Pooja Dhar as nodal counsels to facilitate the compilation of case laws and other materials before the hearing.

On November 22, 2023, the Court directed the nodal counsel to prepare a common compilation of case law, documents and written submissions filed by the parties in terms of the Circular dated August 22, 2023, issued for regulating the course of submissions in larger bench cases. The parties were directed to file all submissions by December 31, 2023, with the nodal counsel. The nodal counsels were directed to prepare soft copies of the common compilations duly indexed in terms of the above circular, e-file the same on or before January 9, 2024, and make it available to all parties. The Registry was directed to notify the date for the hearing of the reference in January 2024. Since then the matter has not been listed. The new legislation, Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita passed by the government has a more draconian provision than Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Common Cause is planning to challenge the new provision in the BNS.

Petition to Completely Ban Export of Iron Ore: Common Cause filed a writ petition in April 2021, to completely ban the export of iron ore (whether in the form of pellets or otherwise). Alternatively, it sought the levy of export duty of 30% on the export of iron ore in all forms, including pellets (except pellets manufactured and exported by KIOCL, formerly known as Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited). The petition also prayed to initiate proceedings under Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. It sought the levy of appropriate penalties as per law against mining companies exporting iron ore pellets in contravention of the provisions of India’s export policy. By exporting iron ore pellets, they have been evading the chargeable duty.

The petition also prayed for a thorough and independent investigation into the role of public officials allowing such a loss to the exchequer. Notice was issued on September 24, 2021, directing the respondents to file their response within four weeks. The UOI filed its response on November 11, 2021, which was taken on record. The matter was taken up on February 18, 2022, when upon hearing the counsel, the Court ordered the matter to be listed on March 9, 2022, for final disposal. Further, the matter was listed on March 22, 2022.

However, on May 21, 2022, the government increased the export duty from 0% to 45% on iron ore pellets. Recently, the export duties on certain steel products and iron ore imposed in late May were removed and the duty on iron ore pellets was reduced to nil again. The matter was taken up on January 17, 2023, and after hearing the counsels, the Court directed the matter to be listed for March 29, 2023. On the said date the Court heard the IAs filed by the parties and directed the matter to be listed for May 9, 2023. The matter was taken up on May 9, 2023, by the bench of Justice Bopanna and Justice Dutta who recommended the matter to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day in the 3rd week of July 2023. On October 16, 2023, the matter was mentioned before the Court and was directed to be listed on November 7, 2023, when the Court heard the counsels and directed the matter to be listed for January 23, 2024. The matter was listed on April 9, 2024, when the court directed to complete the pleadings. On July 30, 2024, exchange of pleadings was completed. The UOI submitted that the Writ Petitions are wholly misconceived as the matters pertain to the ExportImport Policy of the Union Government. Moreover, because of the time-to-time change of policy, there can be no Court intervention on the export policy of export of a particular commodity and whether it is to be freely exported or exported only on payment of customs duty. On September 3, 2024, the matter was adjourned due to the ill health of one of the petitioners. The matter was listed on November 29, 2024, but adjourned for three months due to ill health of the other petitioner Mr. ML Sharma.

Petition challenging the electoral irregularities and to ensure free and fair elections and the rule of law (W.P. (C) 1382/2019)

Common Cause, along with ADR filed a writ petition in 2019, to ensure free and fair elections; and the rule of law; and for the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition highlighted the dereliction of duty on the part of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in declaring election results (of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies) through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) based on accurate and indisputable data which is put in the public domain.

The petitioners sought a direction from the Hon’ble Court to the ECI to not announce any provisional and estimated election results before the actual and accurate reconciliation of data. A direction to the ECI was sought by the petitioners to evolve an efficient, transparent, rational and robust procedure/ mechanism by creating a separate department/grievance cell.

On May 10, 2024, Common Cause and ADR filed an application seeking directions from the Supreme Court to the ECI to disclose authenticated records of voter turnout by uploading scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part-I (Account of Votes Recorded) of all polling stations after each phase of polling in the on-going 2024 Lok Sabha elections on its website and to provide in public domain a tabulation of the constituency and polling station wise figures of voter turnout in absolute numbers and in percentage. On May 17th, 2024, IA no 115592 was heard by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra. The Election Commission of India requested a fair opportunity to deal with the contents of the IA. The court granted a week to the ECI to file a response to the IA. The Application was ordered to be listed on 24th May 2024. On

May 24 2024, the application was heard by the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. Upon hearing the matter, prima facie, the court was not inclined to grant any instant relief given the similarity of prayers in the main writ petition and the application under hearing. The matter was likely to be listed on July 12, 2024, but has since not been listed.

Petition seeking directions to implement the recommendations of the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, 2020 ((W.P. (C) 228/2019)

Common Cause partnered with CPIL and Jindal Naturecure Institute to seek directions for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, 2020, promulgated in 2012 by the Ministry of Heavy Industries (nodal agency for the automobile sector), and the recommendations of Zero Emission Vehicles: Towards a Policy Framework, promulgated in September of 2019 by the Niti Aayog to curb the problems of Climate Change, Air pollution, and cost of importing fossil fuels to India.

On March 5, 2019, the bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna ordered the government to apprise it of the status of implementation of the FAME-India scheme. On January 17, 2020, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways of India through its Secretary, was impleaded as a respondent and a notice was issued to the ministry.

On February 19, 2020, the bench consisting of the CJI and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant discussed that the issue of the use of electric vehicles is connected to several other issues which are pending before the Court. The bench observed that issues about the source of power of public and private electric vehicles have a great impact on the environment of the whole country and all such issues must be discussed simultaneously. The court sought the assistance of authorities empowered with decisionmaking specifically on the following:

Procurement of electric vehicles; providing charging ports; feebate system, i.e., imposing a fee on vehicles with high emissions and providing a subsidy on electric vehicles; use of hydrogen vehicles; any other alternate means of power for vehicles; overall impact on import and environment.

On March 11, 2024, the matter was heard along with suo motu writ petition (c) no.4/2019 by the Coram of Justice Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan. The respondents were granted four weeks to file the counter affidavit.

On May 6, 2024, upon hearing, the court granted four weeks to the respondents as requested. On July 22, 2024, upon hearing the counsel the Court granted four weeks to Mr. Devashish Bharukha, learned Senior Counsel representing the UOI to file the counter affidavit, along with all the policy decisions taken by the UOI from time to time to promote electric vehicles. The court also impressed upon Mr Bharukha to inform the learned Attorney General for India to assist the court in the matter on the next date of hearing and posted the matter for September 23, 2024. The matter was listed for November 5, 2024, but could not be taken up. There are no further orders of listing.

Fair working conditions for domestic workers:

Common Cause, the National Platform for Domestic Workers (NPDW), and Aruna Roy filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking fair and humane working conditions for domestic workers. The petition prays to recognise domestic work as “service for pay,” establish guidelines for their human rights protection and direct the government of India to implement measures such as minimum wage notification, compulsory leaves, maternity benefits, collective bargaining, first response complaints authority, and socio-economic rights like pension and healthcare.

Admitted on November 22, 2018, the Supreme Court’s division bench on July 10, 2024, directed the petitioners to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file a fresh one considering developments since 2018. A fresh petition is in the works.

Contempt Petition against Lawyers Strike: The contempt petition filed by Common Cause against the strike of lawyers in Delhi High Court and all district courts of Delhi on the issue of conflict over pecuniary jurisdiction has led to the submission of draft rules by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

On January 24, 2024, The BCI counsel had stated that the rules may be examined by the Court and the suggestion of the court, if any, shall be accepted by the BCI without any condition.

On February 6, 2024, arguments by the counsels were heard by the court. On February 9, 2024, the court appointed Justice S Muralidhar, as Amicus, to examine the rules in the context of the existing judgments and objections and to submit his report. On May 3, 2024, the matter is ordered to be listed on August 13, 2024.

On August 27, 2024, Dr. S. Muralidhar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that pursuant to his being appointed as Amicus Curiae by the Court, he had held a hybrid meeting with the Bar Council of India on April 29, 2024 and given suggestions which were also put in writing. Though the Bar Council of India had taken a stand that it would consider the suggestions in its meeting, but no such meeting for considering the suggestions was convened. The counsel for the Bar Counsel of India requested that the Amicus Curiae should forward his formal report to it. The Court observed that considering the nature of the issues involved, such modalities were required for the reason that ultimately, the final suggestion/ report by the Amicus Curiae would be submitted to the Court after considering the suggestions given by the Bar Council of India. Accordingly, the Court requested the Bar Council of India to hold such a meeting within four weeks from the date of the hearing and provide its response to the Amicus Curiae who would then submit his final report to the Court within the next four weeks.

Petition challenging the introduction of Electoral Bonds by ADR and Common Cause:

On February 15, 2024, the Court pronounced its judgment striking down the electoral bond scheme, holding it unconstitutional. The Bench held that the scheme violated the voters’ right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court also struck down the amendments made to the Income Tax Act and the Representation of the People Act, which enabled such anonymous political contributions. The court directed the State Bank of India and the Election Commission of India to disclose all details associated with the sale and purchase of these bonds.

On April 23, 2024, The Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the electoral bonds scheme under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the right of the people under Article 14, 19 and 21. The PIL seeks direction for a court-monitored investigation by an SIT into the overwhelming instances of apparent quid pro quo between political parties, corporates and officials of investigation agencies, and other offences.

The petition also prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the authorities to investigate the source of funding of shell companies and lossmaking companies to various political parties, as has been disclosed through the electoral bonds data; to recover the amounts from political parties as donated by companies to these parties as part of quid pro quo arrangements where these are found to be proceeds of crime; and for investigation into the violation of Section 182(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 by companies which donated to political parties through electoral bonds within 3 years of their incorporation and for penalty to be imposed on such companies in terms of Section 182(4) of Companies Act, 2013.

The petition was dismissed by the Court on August 2, 2024. The Court said that it would be “premature” and “inappropriate” to order an investigation under the monitoring of a retired judge when the remedies available under the ordinary law governing criminal law procedure have not been invoked. The bench observed in the order as follows:

“The purchase of electoral bonds and the donations made to the political parties were on the basis of a law enacted by the Parliament. The provisions of the statute have since been held to be unconstitutional. The issue to be decided is whether the underlying reasons for the donations to political parties should be subjected to a Courtmonitored investigation under an SIT.

The petitions are founded on two assumptions: (1) There would be prima facie an element of quid pro quo where the date of the purchase of electoral bonds was in proximity to the award of a contract or a change in policy. (2) There is an involvement of certain officials of the investigating agencies as a consequence of which an investigation by a normal process of law would not be fair or independent.

We have highlighted the underlying premise of the submission to indicate that these are assumptions at the present stage and require the Court to embark upon a roving enquiry into the purchase of the electoral bonds, the donations which were made to the political parties and the arrangements in the nature of quid pro quo…

At the present stage, absent recourse to remedies that are available under the law to pursue such grievances, it would be premature - because the intervention under Article 32 must be preceded by the invocation of the normal remedies under the law and contingent upon the failure of those remedies - and inappropriate -because the intervention by this Court at the present stage would postulate that the normal remedies which are available under the law are not efficacious- for this Court to issue such directions…

Likewise, reliefs such as the reopening of assessments pertain to specific statutory jurisdictions conferred upon authorities under the Income Tax Act and other statutory enactments. Issuing a direction of that nature at the present stage would amount to a conclusion on facts which would be inappropriate”

Writ for Supreme Court directions on Police Reforms: The battle for police reforms has been going on for the last 26 years. The Supreme Court took 10 years to give a historic judgment in 2006, in the petition filed by Prakash Singh, Common Cause and NK Singh. Since then it has been a struggle to get the Court’s directions implemented. On July 3, 2018, responding to an interlocutory application filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the appointment of acting Director General of Police (DGP) in the states, the Supreme Court gave a slew of directions to ensure that there were no distortions in such appointments. It laid down that the states shall send their proposals to the UPSC three months before the retirement of the incumbent DGP. The UPSC shall then prepare a panel of three officers so that the state can appoint one of them as DGP. In October 2022 and December 2022, the Court entertained applications filed by the State of Nagaland and the UPSC to finalise the names of DGP for the state. In January 2023, the matter was listed twice, when the Court decided on the IA filed by Nagaland on the appointment of DGP.

Petition seeking cancellation of the entire allocation of coal blocks to private companies between 1993 and 2012 and a courtmonitored investigation of the said allocation:

On July 24, 2023, the Chief Justice Mr D Y Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard and allowed transfer of the seven investigating officers of ED in the normal course and disposed of the concerned IA. On August 14, 2023, the three-judge bench again heard the matter. The CBI placed on record a “Note on Administrative Issues” indicating the present status of the investigation and prosecution in the coal block allocation cases. Pursuing this, permission was granted to relieve certain officials from their present charge. Previously, the Supreme Court had said that no officials who were investigating the coal block allocation cases could be moved out without its prior permission. The matter is likely to be listed on December 11, 2023. (This matter was heard several times, but not on Common Cause petition)

Delhi High Court

SIT on Over Invoicing requested by CPIL, Common Cause: Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) approached the Delhi High Court seeking a thorough investigation by a SIT into the over-invoicing of imported coal and equipment. The over-invoicing was carried out by various private power companies as detailed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in several of its investigative reports. In the last few years, major instances of such over-invoicing have been unearthed by the DRI, involving several prominent and influential companies with virtual impunity.

On December 4, 2018, the CBI was ordered to produce its original records/ investigation file relating to the two preliminary enquiries and the regular case, as mentioned in its earlier affidavits/ reply. The Court directed the DRI counsel to produce the four adjudicating orders concerning various entities. Additionally, the counsel was to file the status report and produce relevant records duly flagged, together with a comprehensive note vis-avis each one of them. The matter was taken up on August 8, 2019, when the CBI counsel submitted that there was no necessity for filing another status report as the enquiry stood closed.

The High Court directed that the records be produced before the court on the next date of hearing. The DRI counsel submitted that in three cases the adjudication was complete and it would take the same to their logical end. Arguments in the matter started in September 2023. On October 3, 2023, pursuant to the High Court’s order, the co-respondent, CBI submitted a sequence of events post the letter dated January 31, 2014, as well as the status of the investigation against the 40 firms mentioned in the DRI alert dated June 30/31, 2016. It was kept in a sealed cover for the purpose of dictating order by the Court. On conclusion of arguments, the Court reserved its judgment. On December 19, 2023, the bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced its judgement. Observing that the petitioners were invariably dissatisfied with how the investigation of different cases had been carried out by the respondents in the peculiar facts of these cases, the Court directed the Union government, the CBI and the DRI to meticulously and expeditiously look into the allegations of the petitioners to unearth factual position and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any, as per law.

One of the concerned entities, Adani Power Limited, moved two applications seeking recall of the direction against it in the judgment. The bench was informed on January 5, 2024, that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) was dismissed by the Supreme Court in March last year. It was further informed that the concerned department has filed a review petition before the Apex Court, which is pending adjudication.

Finance and Accounts (2023-24)

The Audited Annual Accounts of Common Cause for the year ending March 31, 2024, have been received. The Governing Council has accorded its approval on 27-09-2024. Briefly, the non-grant expenditure during the year was Rs 132.67 lakh against Rs 121.84 lakh recorded in the previous year. The nongrant income during the year was Rs 120.47 lakh compared to Rs 106.24 lakh during 2022- 23. Thus, there was a shortfall of Rs 12.20 lakh during the year against a shortfall of Rs 15.60 lakh in the previous year.

NEXT »

Annual General Meeting Notice >>