{"id":232292,"date":"2021-11-18T19:42:24","date_gmt":"2021-11-18T14:12:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=232292"},"modified":"2022-02-10T18:12:08","modified_gmt":"2022-02-10T12:42:08","slug":"supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-hindustan-zinc-disinvestment-of-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/supreme-court-news\/supreme-court-orders-cbi-probe-into-hindustan-zinc-disinvestment-of-2002\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court orders CBI probe into Hindustan Zinc disinvestment of 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Supreme Court<\/a> today passed orders for a full-fledged CBI investigation into the 2002 disinvestment of Hindustan Zinc Ltd (HZL) allegedly at a very low price after which Vedanta group company Sterlite took management control of HZL. However, the Supreme Court said the present government can disinvest the remaining 29.5 percent of its residual shareholding in HZL. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court has noted, \u201cThe decision in the \u201cCentre for Public Interest Litigation\u201d cannot apply to the present facts because HZL had ceased to be a government company, at the stage of the disinvestment which is in the challenge.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n A bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna also held that summary disposal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of the constitution does not bar the present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on the merits of the issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Res Judicata <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court has observed, <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWith regard to the issue of Res Judicata, this held that the three-judge Bench judgment of this Court- Maton Mines Mazdoor Singh, being relied on by The Union Government and SOVL was rejected in limine, without a substantive adjudication on the merits of their claim.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cThus the argument that the reliefs sought by the petitioners are similar to the abovementioned case, where they challenged the disinvestment of 2002 and 2014, on the basis of the decision in Centre for Public Interest Litigation, were not accepted by this court,\u201d it stated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justices Chandrachud and Nagarathna observed, <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court must be conscious that grave issues of public interest are not lost in the woods merely because a petition was initially filed and dismissed, without a substantial adjudication on merits. While criticizing the trend of poorly pleaded public interest litigations being filed instantly following disclosure in the media, they observed that interpretation of the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata should be in a manner that does not debar access to justice.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Bench held that the present writ petition is not barred by res judicata.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Preliminary Inquiry<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After considering the recommendations of the CBI official, various reports and recommendations this court was satisfied that a prima facie case for a cognizable offense, as mandated in para 9.1 of the CBI Manual, has been made out in this case and warrants the registration of a regular case. Therefore the court decided to use its exceptional powers to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation into the matter. The court held that the disinvestment in 2002 exhibits prima facie, for registration of a regular case followed by a full-fledged investigation. Furthermore, the Court directed that it shall be duly apprised of the status of the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe court must live to interpret principles of res judicata: Supreme Court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n