Bombay High Court criticises CBI over privacy breach in ₹800 crore scam probe, grants relief to TCE
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by TCE seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) lodged on June 18. The FIR named former JNPA chief manager Sunil Kumar Madabhavi, TCE director Devdutt Bose, Boskalis Smit India LLP, Mumbai, and Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai and other officials and firms involved in the project.
'It was alleged that during the maintenance of dredged channels in Phase-I of the project, JNPA made excess payments aggregating to ₹365.9 crore to the contractors against claims raised for over-dredging of channels. However, in Phase-Il of the project, which overlapped with the maintenance period of Phase-I, JNPT [Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust] made an additional excess payment of ₹438 crore to the contractor, showing that no over-dredging was done in Phase-l or maintenance period thereof,' the CBI's statement read.
These alleged losses were based on over-dredging claims and falsified hydrographic data. The FIR invokes sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
TCE, which was appointed as the project management consultant in 2003, submitted the final project report for Phase I in 2010. Its responsibilities included preparation of tender documents and supervision of project execution.
Searches were conducted at the residential premises of officers of JNPA, TCE and offices of accused private companies at five different locations in Mumbai and Chennai which led the investigating team to the recovery of several documents relating to the Capital Dredging Project, digital devices and documents showing investments made by public servants.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai, appearing for TCE, argued that the company's role was limited to consultancy and that it had no part in contractual or financial decisions. He also contended that there was no material evidence linking the firm to the alleged fraud.
The Court noted that the memo disclosed the password of a laptop belonging to Devdutt Bose, which, the Bench said, constituted a serious violation of privacy and the Information Technology Act.
'How can you publish the password of someone? This is contrary to the basis of the IT Act. You have caused damage to someone. You (CBI) cannot publish someone else's password in public. This is a very sensitive matter. This involves tampering. This in itself is mandatory grounds for discharge,' the Bench observed.
The Bench also raised concerns about whether the disclosure was made with malicious intent, potentially benefiting competitors.
The Court has directed the CBI to clarify key aspects of the FIR, including the source of the complaint and whether the matter had previously been examined by the Attorney General for India or the JNPT Board of Trustees, as claimed by the petitioner.
The case is scheduled to be heard again after two weeks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
BRS leader Praveen Kumar demands Govt. handover phone-tapping case to CBI
HYDERABAD Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader R.S. Praveen Kumar has demanded that the State government hand over the phone tapping case being probed by a special investigation team of the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) since Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy himself is facing similar allegations now. Along with the CBI inquiry, the government must institute an inquiry with a sitting judge of the High Court in the matter as the Chief Minister appears to be get the phones of his Cabinet colleagues, Congress party leaders as also those of Opposition parties tapped with the help of private agencies instead of the State Police under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, he said addressing a press conference here on Tuesday. Suspecting that Mr. Revanth Reddy was getting the phones tapped with the help of Pegasus spyware, the former IPS officer alleged that the he was doing so with the help of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre and felt that Union Home Minister Amit Shah could also be in the know of the tapping going on in Telangana. Alleging that his phone was also being tapped as he received notice from the SIT in the ongoing phone tapping case on July 14, but a vernacular newspaper backing Mr. Revanth Reddy wrote about it on July 7 itself. He stated that his phone was tapped while he was in Panjagutta PS in the matter of a case. The BRS would also bring the matter of phone tapping by the Revanth Reddy government to the Governor's notice.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismisses Congress appeal against Rs 199 crore tax assessment
Denying relief to the Indian National Congress, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on Monday dismissed an appeal by the party against a tax demand of ₹199.15 crore for the year 2018-19. Late return filing and violations of cash donation limits were among the main grounds due to which the ITAT rejected the party's claim for tax exemption. 'The assessee's return filed on 02.02.2019 is not within the 'due' date to make it eligible for the impugned exemption,' ruled the coram on July 21. The INC had filed its income tax return on February 2, 2019 – over a month after the extended due date of December 31, 2018, prescribed under the IT Act. It had declared income after claiming an exemption of Rs. 199.15 crores. Another issue that the ITAT looked at was a violation of cash donation limits. According to scrutiny proceedings, the party had received ₹14.49 lakh in cash donations exceeding ₹2,000 from various individuals. Donations above ₹ 2,000 can only be received through banking channels like account payee cheques or electronic transfers as per the Finance Act, 2017. 'As per section 13A(d) of the Act, donation in excess of ₹2,000/- is mandatorily be received through a/c payee cheque/draft or through electronic mode and therefore donation in excess of ₹2,000/- received in cash violates provisions of clause (d) of first proviso to section 13A of the Act,' the ITAT order stated. The Congress tried to find respite in Section 139(4) of the IT Act which states that if an individual misses the ITR filing deadline, they can still file a belated return, subject to penalties. The ITAT, however, denied it relief. '…it is manifestly clear that the legislature has incorporated the statutory expression therein as 'within the time allowed under that section' i.e. section 139(1) as well as u/s 139(4)…we thus reject the assessee's instant first and foremost substantive grievance in very terms and decide the above first question framed between the parties; in the department's favour,' the tribunal ruled.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases
The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system The acquittal of all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case by the Bombay High Court on July 21 has stunned the nation. The devastating attacks, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800, led to a trial court convicting the accused in 2015. But the higher court overturned that verdict, citing the prosecution's failure to present credible evidence. This case reflects a broader trend in India's criminal justice system—prosecutions in high-profile terror cases and other serious crimes often collapse due to weak evidence, procedural delays, and political interference, leaving victims and the public disillusioned. There are legal and political factors behind these failures. Drawing on the Mumbai case, the 2G spectrum scandal, and systemic trends, one can understand why convictions often remain elusive. Robust evidence is the foundation of any successful prosecution, yet criminal cases in the country often stumble here. In the Mumbai train blasts case, the Bombay High Court flagged unreliable witnesses, flawed identification parades, and inadmissible confessions allegedly extracted through torture. The prosecution couldn't even specify what type of bombs were used—an indicator of unpreparedness. This evidentiary fragility is not limited to terror cases. For instance, in the 2017 2G spectrum case, all accused, including A Raja and K Kanimozhi, were acquitted because the CBI failed to produce sufficient documents or reliable witnesses after years of investigation. A 2019 Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report reinforces this view, citing uncorroborated testimonies and coerced confessions as recurring issues. Courts demand strong, verifiable proof—when agencies rely on shaky foundations, acquittals become inevitable. Another chronic flaw is the lack of a comprehensive witness protection law. Witnesses often retract statements or refuse to testify due to fear of reprisal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue, noting that laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) offer only limited protection. In cases involving organised crime, threats from powerful syndicates further weaken the prosecution. Strengthening evidence collection and ensuring witness safety are thus essential reforms. Procedural delays and systemic inefficiencies The nation's criminal justice system is bogged down by procedural delays and inefficiencies, which undermine even the strongest cases. Investigations often involve multiple agencies, causing coordination failures. The 2002 Akshardham attack case is a clear example—the Supreme Court, in 2014, criticised the investigation's lack of diligence after a series of handovers between agencies. Special courts, meant to fast-track serious crime trials, often share space with regular courts, creating backlogs. The Vidhi report points out that even high-profile cases under UAPA or MCOCA languish for years due to overburdened dockets and limited resources. The Mumbai train blasts case, for instance, took nearly two decades to reach a final verdict—long enough for evidence to degrade and witness recollections to fade. Laws like UAPA permit prolonged pre-charge detention—up to 180 days, compared to 24 hours under the Criminal Procedure Code. Agencies sometimes detain suspects without building strong cases, assuming that the legal process itself serves as punishment. But once cases reach higher courts, judges scrutinise them more rigorously, often leading to acquittals, as seen in the Mumbai case. Better agency coordination and court infrastructure are key to reducing delays and improving outcomes. Judicial scepticism and the misuse of stringent laws The country has stringent laws—like the now-defunct TADA, repealed POTA, UAPA, and Maharashtra's MCOCA—to empower law enforcement against terror and organised crime. But when misapplied, they often lead to prosecution failures. In the Mumbai case, the prosecution leaned heavily on MCOCA, but the High Court found the supporting evidence too weak, resulting in acquittals. The Vidhi report highlights that POTA Review Committees found no prima facie evidence in 1,006 out of 1,529 cases by 2005—indicating misuse. Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail is denied if courts see any reasonable ground for guilt. This leads to prolonged detentions without trial. However, higher courts remain wary of overreach. For example, in the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, all 39 accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence beyond coerced confessions. Judicial scepticism is widespread, even in financial scam cases, where agencies detain suspects but fail to produce solid evidence. Judges play a key role—no matter how stringent the law, a judge's discretion determines its application. When evidence is weak, courts hesitate to convict, especially in an era where judicial outlooks are influenced by liberal constitutional values. The perception that the legal process is the punishment has become more entrenched. Agencies may use long detentions to pressure suspects, but without credible evidence, courts intervene—leading to collapses like that of the Mumbai case. Thus, the focus must return to meticulous evidence collection and responsible application of law. Political interference and federal tensions Political dynamics often complicate criminal prosecutions. Federalism-based conflicts between the Centre and states delay investigations. Agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) require state cooperation. The controversial National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) proposal failed after 14 states opposed it, citing threats to federal autonomy. Similarly, Gujarat's 2015 GCTOC Bill was delayed due to a lack of Presidential assent, stalling state-level efforts. Political alignments can also shape outcomes. The 2G spectrum case offers a telling example. On December 21, 2017, a special CBI court in New Delhi acquitted all accused—including A Raja and K. Kanimozhi—calling the case baseless. The court noted that despite one and a half years of waiting, the CBI failed to bring in evidence or witnesses. Judge OP Saini expressed frustration, saying the agency 'couldn't care less". This came at a time when the DMK appeared poised for a resurgence after J Jayalalithaa's death, while the BJP, with actor Rajinikanth hesitating to join politics, seemed to seek renewed ties with M Karunanidhi—its one-time ally during the Vajpayee era. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had even been photographed with Karunanidhi's family just months before the verdict. Was the CBI 'nudged" to go soft on DMK leaders? Media trials further complicate matters. In high-profile cases, widespread coverage often convinces the public that an accused is guilty long before a court weighs the evidence. But judges—aware of media excesses—may be repelled by aggressive reportage, affecting their outlook. Public perception, shaped by these narratives, pushes agencies to act fast, sometimes cutting corners. But legal outcomes depend on facts, not headlines. Reducing political interference and improving Centre-state coordination are vital to restoring integrity in prosecutions. Legal representation and the prosecution-defence gap The outcome of trials often hinges on the quality of legal representation. There's a stark imbalance between well-resourced defence lawyers and overburdened or undertrained state prosecutors. To fix this, the nation must invest in the training and independence of public prosecutors. Only then can they counter the skill and strategy of top defence lawyers. Road ahead: Reforming the system The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system. Evidentiary lapses, systemic delays, misuse of harsh laws, political meddling, and lopsided legal representation all contribute to failed prosecutions. These failures cut across terror cases, corruption scandals, and violent crimes, leaving victims without closure and eroding public faith in the system. Reforms are urgent. Investigative agencies need better training. Witness protection laws must be enacted. Court infrastructure must expand to reduce backlogs. Political interference must be checked by preserving institutional autonomy. And prosecution teams must be strengthened to ensure fair competition in the courtroom. top videos View all Justice in India cannot remain hostage to inefficiencies and influence. A legal system that upholds fairness, efficiency, and accountability is the only way to deliver justice—and restore faith that those behind mass killings, like the Mumbai train blasts, will face the consequences of their crimes. The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Bombay High Court judiciary justice Mumbai train blasts view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 22, 2025, 18:45 IST News opinion Opinion | Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
