Sanchayita Lahkar

The Gauhati High Court, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged large-scale corruption within the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) in Assam. The Court held that statutory remedies had not been exhausted by the petitioners and therefore judicial interference was not warranted.

The Division Bench noted, "all acts, which the petitioners have stated in this PIL petition are essentially acts of corruption, and embezzlement, which fall within the definition of statutory offence under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), or, are acts of criminal misconduct under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."

Also Read: “Trauma Has Engulfed Her in Silence”: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in 1986 Minor Rape Case, Finds “No Crack” in Prosecution Case

The PIL was filed by Narapati Brahma and Ranjan Kumar Baruah, residents of Kokrajhar and Guwahati respectively, seeking an independent investigation into alleged corruption that had taken place from 2010 to 2020 across various departments within the BTC, including Panchayat and Rural Development, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes, Sports, Agriculture, Textile and Handloom, Information and Public Relations, Transport, Education, Social Welfare, and Fishery.

The petitioners contended that unchecked embezzlement of funds had occurred within the four BTC districts of Kokrajhar, Udalguri, Baksa, and Chirang. Allegations were supported by findings from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India in its report on Social, General and Economic (Non-PSUs) Sectors for the year ending 31 March 2018, and a Social Audit of the MGNREGA scheme conducted by Gram Sabhas.

Petitioner No. 1, Narapati Brahma, stated that he is an advocate and Para Legal Volunteer, and was recognized as the best Para Legal Volunteer for 2016-2017 in Kokrajhar. Petitioner No. 2, Ranjan Kumar Baruah, is a career counsellor with a Master's Degree in Political Science and was awarded the National Youth Award, 2012-13, by the Ministry of Youth Welfare and Sports.

According to the petition, large-scale irregularities had occurred under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), particularly in job card issuance and wage disbursement. It was alleged that several payments were either not made to cardholders or were made using fake job cards, with involvement of banking personnel in fraudulent transactions.

Additionally, the petition cited the CAG's findings on irregularities in procurement of mosquito nets, plantation of saplings, preparation of Detailed Project Reports, and distribution of items like books and sewing machines. The petitioners also referred to non-execution of development works and misuse of funds meant for galvanized-sheet distribution.

In response, the BTC (respondent no. 4) filed a reply through its Principal Secretary, denying the allegations and submitting documentation to support its position that the charges were vague and inaccurate.

The Bench recorded that the petitioners had directly approached the Court without first seeking redress from the appropriate investigative authorities. "It appears that the petitioners have directly approached this Court by way of filing this PIL petition," the Court noted.

The Court cited precedents including the Supreme Court's judgment in Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 513, where it was held that, "the remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are of an extraordinary nature. They cannot be granted as a matter of due course to provide redressal in situations where statutory remedies are available."

It further quoted, "It is not viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an investigation. That function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation."

Also Read: ‘Not a Hospital, but a Resort’: Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeals by Ayurvedic Resort, Citing ‘Canoeing, Cruises and Cultural Shows’ as Primary Activities, Upholds Luxury Tax and Penalties

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's more recent judgement in State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541, reiterating that "the fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ of mandamus."

Based on these judicial precedents, the Gauhati High Court found that the petitioners had failed to approach the investigating authorities with the materials in their possession before filing the PIL.

The Division Bench ordered, "we are not inclined to entertain this PIL petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the authorities concerned under the State, or the Central Government, or the competent Criminal Court for launching investigation into the alleged incidences of corruption and embezzlement of public money, based on the material relied upon by them."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: T. Deuri, Advocate
For the Respondents: N. Das, Junior Government Advocate, Assam

Case Title: Narapati Brahma and Ranjan Kumar Baruah vs. The Union of India and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:2987-DB
Case Number: PIL/75/2020
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

[Read/Download order]