Delhi High Court upholds quashing of CBI notice to ex-judge IM Quddusi

The Delhi High Court recently allowed quashing of a notice issued by the CBI to retired Chhattisgarh High Court Justice IM Quddusi in connection with a medical college bribery case. The CBI notice sought details about Quddusi’s mobile numbers, bank accounts and domestic staff.

In an order passed on January 12, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the CBI notice was issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a provision meant for the production of specific, pre-existing documents or objects, not for compelling an accused to create information based on personal knowledge.

“By issuing a Notice under Section 91 for what is essentially a questionnaire, the Petitioner (CBI) is attempting to bypass the interrogation process. This is an attempt to convert an oral examination, subject to the accused's volition and rights, into a mandatory order for production. To treat a demand for details as a demand for a document, would be to stretch the statutory language of Section 91 beyond its permissible limits,” said the HC.

Retired HC Justice Quddusi was arrested by the CBI in 2018. The FIR charged him for conspiracy to secure a favourable judicial order for Prasad Education Trust, whose medical college had been debarred by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The FIR named Justice Quddusi, former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Narayan Shukla and others under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

During the investigation, the CBI issued a notice under Section 91 CrPC asking Quddusi to provide details of phone numbers used, bank accounts held and drivers or servants employed during the relevant period in 2017. Justice Quddusi challenged the notice, arguing that Section 91 cannot be invoked against an accused and that compelling him to supply such information violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

The trial court ruled in the ex-judge’s favour, prompting the CBI to challenge the order before the High Court. The High Court agreed with the trial court’s findings. It held that the CBI’s notice effectively amounted to a questionnaire requiring the accused to “apply his mind, search his memory and compile information,” thereby amounting to testimonial compulsion.

Retired HC Justice IM Quddusi was close to then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Benches were changed by CJI Misra during the medical college bribery case was heard. This was the tipping point of the controversial press conference by four senior-most judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Ranjan Gogoi — accusing CJI for changes benches to scuttle the cases.