The Orissa High Court has rejected a writ petition filed by senior IAS officer Bishnupada Sethi and his family members, seeking to quash an ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into a bribery case. The petition challenged the legality of the investigation, alleging violations of privacy, dignity, and procedural safeguards.
The case stems from a corruption probe in which CBI alleged that Chanchal Mukherjee, a senior official in a CPSU, demanded ₹10 lakh as bribe from a private company director for clearing pending project bills. A trap laid by the CBI led to the recovery of cash from one Debadutta Mohapatra. Investigators claimed that Mohapatra received the money from Mukherjee, and a phone call directing the transaction was allegedly made using Mukherjee’s phone by Petitioner No.1, Bishnupada Sethi.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Upholds Divorce on Grounds of Mental Cruelty Over Wife’s Remarks on Husband’s Disability
Further investigation revealed that Sethi had met with Mukherjee prior to the incident regarding a ₹50 crore project under the SC/ST Department. CBI also found that Sethi’s daughter had received luxury items from Mohapatra. Following this, searches were conducted at the Sethi residence and the daughter’s hostel, during which digital devices were seized.
Petitioners accused the agency of harassment, alleging illegal seizure of items, denial of due process, and mental harassment of the daughter during her exams. They argued that there was no direct evidence linking Sethi to the alleged bribe and claimed that the investigation was a fishing expedition that caused immense reputational damage.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Rebukes Cuttack Municipal Commissioner Over Unauthorized Construction Near Law University
The CBI defended its actions, asserting that all searches were conducted under valid judicial warrants and due process was followed. The agency emphasized that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that obstructing it now would set a harmful precedent. It stated that digital evidence, suspicious behavior during the search, and the chain of events provided sufficient grounds for further investigation.
The Court highlighted that:
“What is troubling is the unmistakable impression that the petitioner believes his administrative standing entitles him to bypass the ordinary route. Courts do not, and must not, create separate lanes for those in high office who feel inconvenienced by being subject to the same law as everyone else.”
The judgment cited Supreme Court precedents that courts should not interfere with investigations unless there is a clear abuse of law or absence of an offence. It emphasized that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be used sparingly and not as an alternative to regular legal remedies.
“Petitioner No.1’s status as a senior officer does not entitle him to special treatment that places him above the law. On the contrary, higher the office, greater the responsibility to submit to legal scrutiny when credible accusations are made.”
Rejecting the plea, the Court termed the petition as premature and ill-advised, cautioning against the misuse of constitutional remedies to evade legitimate investigation. It stressed that privacy is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted during criminal investigations if due process is followed.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim protection previously granted. The CBI was allowed to proceed with the investigation without judicial interference.
Case Title: Bishnupada Sethi & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi & Ors.
