A three-judge bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said that these cases were concerned with "large scale corruption" that had polluted the allocation of coal blocks and they form a "clear and distinct class" that need to be treated in a manner different from the usual cases dealt by the courts.
"The magnitude of the illegalities is such that it appears that even the integrity of the (then) Director of the CBI (Ranjit Sinha) was prima facie compromised, and this court had to intervene and direct investigations into the conduct of the director of the
It refused to "re-visit" the July 25, 2014 order passed by the apex court which had made it clear that any prayer for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation or trial can be made only before the apex court and no other court shall entertain it.
The apex court observed that its order, barring the Delhi High Court from entertaining challenge to special court's interim order passed during pendency of trial, was "not violative" of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
"The order passed by this court does not amount to legislating in the classical mould but according special treatment to a class of cases for good and clear reason and in larger public interest as well as in the interest of the accused," it noted in its 53-page judgement.
It also noted that these cases were are not ordinary but fall under a special category which requires special attention given the magnitude of illegalities allegedly committed, including some with criminal intent.
"It is in this view of the matter that this court had no option but to hand over the investigations to the CBI and to monitor the investigations so that they reach their logical conclusion, without any interference from any quarter.
The bench observed that the Supreme Court is obliged to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens in accordance with the Constitution, but it was equally true that while doing so, public interest cannot be "flung out of the window".
"Very often, public interest is lost sight of while dealing with an accused person and the rights of an accused person are given far greater importance than societal interests and more often than not greater importance than the rights of individual victims," it said.
The court also said that this "out of the ordinary step" was taken given the serious nature of allegations in these cases.
The apex court's order came on a batch of pleas which have placed the issue of whether the high court can entertain the challenge to the order passed by special court during pendency of trial in coal cases.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
