SC's AR Antulay Judgment On Locus Standi To Initiate Criminal Complaints Doesn't Apply To Writ Petitions: Delhi High Court

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the Petitioner was neither a homebuyer nor was otherwise directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts of the company. It observed,

“The Petitioner does not fall within the category of person aggrieved so as to be entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Significant to note that the Petitioner had relied on AR Antulay v. RS Nayak (1984) where the Supreme Court had held that any person may set the criminal law in motion, and that absence of direct locus cannot be a ground to reject legitimate grievances pertaining to financial crimes.

However, the High Court observed that the said judgment was rendered in context of criminal complaints and cannot be extended to apply to writ jurisdiction. It observed,

“The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (Supra) to maintain these writ petitions for a Court monitored investigation, in the considered opinion of this Court is misconceived.

While it is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that any individual may set the criminal law in motion, save where a statutory provision enacting or creating an offence provides however, the said principle of law was set out in the said judgment in the context of filing and maintaining complaints before the competent authority and not a writ petition.”

Petitioner had alleged that while the ED has identified Rs. 4,246 crores as proceeds of crime, however, it had only attached properties worth Rs. 1,317 crores, deliberately excluding high-value assets such as 149 acres of prime land in Delhi, Gurgaon properties, and overseas investments, suggesting investigative bias and collusion.

The High Court observed it is settled law that only conceivable basis on which writ petitions may be filed by a party, who is not a person aggrieved is on the anvil of Public Interest Litigation.

“However, in view of the admitted fact that the petitions have not been instituted in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, the captioned writ petitions are not Public Interest Litigations and, therefore, Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions.”

It relied on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976), wherein the Supreme Court laid down that a person invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must ordinarily have a personal or individual right in the subject matter.

“Thus, the general proposition as regards locus to approach the competent authority in a criminal complaint relied upon by the Petitioner, though correctly stated, does not assist the Petitioner in maintaining the present writ petition, which seeks Court monitored investigation.

In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner is not seeking registration of a criminal complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings in the first instance. Rather, the prayer is for a court-monitored investigation, which is a qualitatively distinct remedy and is governed by different considerations in law,” the Court held and dismissed the petitions.

The Court also imposed a cost of ₹25K on the Petitioner, an Advocate by profession, for concealing filing of multiple petitions on the issue.

Appearance: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, Ms. Ruby Sharma and Ms. Aastha Singh, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Amol Sinha and Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for State with Mr. Mr. Mathew M. Philip and Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocates along with Insp. Kamal Kishor, PS: EOW Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocates for ED Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Prakash Khatri, Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Ms. Tannavi Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Advocates for Respondent Sh. Lalit Goyal

Case title: Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. GNCTD (and batch)

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 614/2024 (and batch)

Click here to read judgment