Court holds no vested right to choose investigating officer absent proven mala fides; strongly discourages addressing pending investigation grievances to constitutional authorities
In a significant judgment dated August 5, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, dismissed the petition filed by Fair Vakkayil John seeking substitution of the investigating officer in a case under investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner had alleged bias and mala fides against the investigating officer, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinhmar, Assistant Director, and sought a direction for his recusal and appointment of an independent officer.
The Court clarified a crucial legal principle that a person under investigation does not possess a vested right to nominate or seek substitution of the investigating officer merely on the basis of subjective apprehension or dissatisfaction. Unless there is demonstrable bias, mala fides, or abuse of process, courts will not interfere with ongoing investigations. The petitioner's submissions lacked any material to prima facie establish such bias or mala fides.
Apart from rejecting the substantive prayer for substitution, the Court strongly deprecated the petitioner's approach of forwarding his representation not only to the competent authority within the Directorate of Enforcement but also to various constitutional authorities including the Hon'ble Minister of Finance, the Secretary of the Department of Financial Services, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Directorate, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and the Chief Justice of India. Copies were even sent to official email addresses of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.
The Court held that such administrative representations addressing pending investigations to constitutional authorities are inconsistent with judicial procedure and institutional discipline. It emphasized that grievances related to investigations must be pursued through proper legal channels and not by circumventing the judicial process through letters or emails to constitutional functionaries, who are not statutory decision-makers in such matters. This practice was strongly discouraged.
To deter similar conduct in the future, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioner payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs but warned that repetition of such conduct could attract harsher consequences.
Regarding the petitioner's request for preservation and production of CCTV footage related to the dates of the investigation, the Court was informed that the applicable surveillance policy mandates retention of footage for only 30 days, after which recordings are automatically overwritten. Consequently, the footage was no longer available and could not be produced.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the above observations, affirming the principle that courts will not lightly interfere in investigations without cogent evidence of unfairness, and underscoring the importance of maintaining procedural propriety in seeking judicial intervention.
This judgment reiterates the judiciary's commitment to uphold the integrity of criminal investigations while ensuring that litigants follow due process and respect institutional protocols.
Bottom Line:
A person under investigation does not have a vested right to choose or seek substitution of the Investigating Officer merely on the basis of subjective apprehension, unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, or abuse of process is established.
Statutory provision(s):
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)
Fair Vakkayil John v. Union of India, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971955
