Yashwant Sinha and Ors vs CBI and Anr
Review Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 46 & 122 of 2019, etc. – decided 14 Nov 2019, Full Bench (Kaul J., Gogoi CJI, K.M. Joseph J.)
Get live updates of supreme court judgments. Read all supreme court India judgements, High Court judgements and stay updated only on the Cou
1. Key Legal Issues (Law Points)
Scope of judicial review in defense procurements (decision-making process, pricing, offset partner selection)
Alleged errors apparent on record justifying review, including failure to address prayer for an FIR and incorrect statements regarding the CAG report
Binding force of Lalita Kumari v. UP (2014) on mandatory FIR registration where cognizable offence is disclosed
Applicability and mandatory nature of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for prior approval before investigation into decisions by public servants
2. Ratio Decidendi (Reasons & Reasoning)
The Court reaffirmed that judicial review in defense contracts remains limited—no scope for fishing inquiries or substituting administrative decisions unless there is clear procedural or factual infirmity.
Allegations regarding pricing, offsets, or process did not meet the threshold to interfere with the executive’s decision under Article 32 where adequate material was available, and significance of national security limits scrutiny
Error in the statement about the CAG–PAC review, while factual, was not material enough to affect the conclusion and was satisfactorily corrected by the Court
The Majority held that petitioners’ request for FIR and CBI investigation was considered but dismissed, since no cognizable offence was made out prima facie to invoke Lalita Kumari’s mandate
Justice K.M. Joseph’s separate (concurring) opinion emphasized that Lalita Kumari mandates investigation if a cognizable offence appears on face of complaint, but Section 17A (effective July 2018) creates a statutory bar requiring prior government approval before an inquiry—unless previously obtained, further action is not legally valid
Get live updates of supreme court judgments. Read all supreme court India judgements, High Court judgements and stay updated only on the Cou
3. Final Ruling (Decision)
All review petitions dismissed—no merit; the original judgment stands, underlining limits of Article 32 judicial review in defense procurements
Correction application granted: clarified that pricing details “have already been shared with CAG”, but PAC review follows “in due course,” instead of implying completed process
Contempt petition against Rahul Gandhi closed with caution—subsequent apology accepted; no further proceedings initiated
Section 17A bar upheld—Justice Joseph held that proceeding without prior approval renders investigation invalid, regardless of Lalita Kumari compliance needs
4. Highlighted Paragraphs for Quick Reference
Para 15 – details on contours of judicial review: decision making, pricing, offsets
Para 25 – clarified the Court’s refusal to direct FIR registration under Section 340 CrPC
Sanjay K. Kaul J. Paras 33–34 – final dismissal on jurisdiction under Article 32
Joseph J. Paras 86–87 – Section 17A discussion on statutory bar to investigation without approval
Aspect Takeaway
Judicial limits Courts must defer to executive when proper procedures followed in sensitive defense contracts
Legal recourse scope Review petitions not a substitute for appeal or probe unless clear, palpable error
Statutory safeguard Section 17A imposes mandatory prior approval before investigating official acts—failure to comply renders FIR invalid
Get live updates of supreme court judgments. Read all supreme court India judgements, High Court judgements and stay updated only on the Cou
• Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation
• Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 46 & 122 of 2019
• (2020) 2 SCC 338
• Rafale Fighter Jets Judgment
• Supreme Court of India Judgment on Rafale Deal
Statutes and Legal Provisions Cited
• Article 32 – Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
• Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal
• Article 137 – Review jurisdiction of Supreme Court
• Section 340 CrPC – Procedure when Court is to be moved for perjury
• Section 154 CrPC – Registration of FIR
• Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Mandatory prior sanction before investigation
• Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review in civil proceedings
• Supreme Court Rules, Order XL (old) / Order XLVII (2013 Rules)
Landmark Precedents Referenced
• Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1
• P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595
• Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320
• Moran Mar Basselios v. Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526
• Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.N. Mehta, AIR 1971 SC 2162
• Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674
Doctrinal / Thematic Keywords
• Judicial Review in Defence Procurement
• Scope of Review Jurisdiction
• Error Apparent on the Face of Record
• CBI Investigation and FIR Registration
• Public Procurement & National Security
• Offset Partner Selection (Reliance Aerostructure Limited)
• Commercial Favouritism Allegation
• CAG Report and PAC Review Misstatement
• Contempt of Court by Political Leaders
• Limitations of Article 32 Jurisdiction
• Constitution Bench Binding Precedent
• Consequence of Section 17A in Corruption Inquiries
Practical Search Strings for Legal Research
• "Yashwant Sinha" AND "CBI" AND "Review Petition" AND "Rafale"
• "Section 17A" AND "Prevention of Corruption Act" AND "CBI"
• "Lalita Kumari" AND "mandatory FIR"
• "Judicial review" AND "defence contracts" AND "Supreme Court"
• "Review jurisdiction" AND "error apparent on record"
• "Offset Partner" AND "Rafale" AND "Reliance"
• "Contempt petition" AND "Rahul Gandhi"
• "Rafale Judgment" AND "CAG report"
