State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978) - Case Analysis

Introduction of State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978) popularly known as ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ is a landmark case regarding the issues of cancellation of anticipatory bail and witness tampering. The case centres around the Hindi film ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ which was a satirical commentary of the political landscape during the Emergency in India. The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its decision on 5th May, 1978 clarified the principles regarding the cancellation of bail, particularly in situations involving attempts to obstruct justice, and established important precedents in Indian criminal law.

Historical Context and Facts of State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

The case State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978) popularly known as the ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ is a landmark case regarding the cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The following are the brief facts of the case -

Background of the Film ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’

The present case centres around the Hindi film ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ which was produced by Shri Amrit Nahata. The film served as a satirical commentary on the political landscape during the Emergency in India. 

Political Allegations against Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi

The film targeted the alleged actions of the mother-son duo i.e., the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi and the former Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The narrative of the film condemned the political climate and made it a subject of controversy.

Censorship Issues and Writ Petition of Mandamus

The film was not granted a censorship certificate by the Board of Censors. Following this the Producer Shri Amrit Nahata filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the board to grant the certificate. The Supreme Court directed the screening of the film on 17th November, 1975. However, the screening never occurred as all 150 reels of the film were destroyed.

Allegations of Conspiracy and Destruction

The Prosecution alleged that the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi in conspiracy with Vidya Charan Shukla who was the Minister for Information and Broadcasting sought to suppress the film. The duo, to prevent its public screening and exhibition, planned the destruction of the film. The reels which comprised 13 steel trunks and contained 150 spools were transported from Bombay to Delhi and eventually to the Maruti Limited premises in Gurgaon where the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi was the Managing Director. Under the directions of the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi, the spools were burned before 24th November, 1975.

The Prosecution also alleged that a positive print of the film was removed from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and was delivered to the premises of Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi.

Discovery of Evidence Post-Emergency

A raid was conducted at the Maruti Limited premises in Gurgaon after the Emergency ended and the Janata Government came to power. The raid uncovered 13 steel trunks which contained burnt and damaged reels of the film. Statements from employees including Security Officer R.B. Khedkar and Assistant Kanwar Singh Yadav revealed the details of the destruction. Both Khedkar and Yadav confessed to their involvement and were granted pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

CBI Investigation and Charges against Sanjay Gandhi

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted a thorough investigation and filed a charge sheet that cited 138 witnesses. The Respondent Sanjay Gandhi was charged under Section 120B, Section 409, Section 435 and  Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Witness Tampering Allegations in the ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ Case

The Approver, Assistant Kanwar Singh Yadav during the proceedings retracted his earlier confessions. The Prosecution accused the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi of tampering with witnesses to influence the trial.

Bail and State’s Appeal

The Respondent Sanjay Gandhi to avoid arrest obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. The Court granted the bail to Sanjay Gandhi despite the allegations of tampering of witness. Aggrieved by the decision of the Session Court the Delhi Administration which was represented by the CBI filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and sought the cancellation of the bail. The appeal was based on the grounds that the actions of the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi obstructed the course of justice. The appeal followed the dismissal of a similar plea by the Delhi High Court.

Issue addressed in State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

The main question which was addressed in the case of ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ is whether the bail of the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi should be cancelled based on the allegations of the Prosecution of witness tampering? 

Legal Provisions involved in State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

In the case of the State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi Section 120B, Section 409, Section 435 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code played a significant role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy

Section 120B provides punishment for Criminal Conspiracy (Now Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023). It states that-

1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards shall, where no express provision is made for the punishment of such a conspiracy be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both.

Section 409 of Indian Penal Code: Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent

Section 409  (Now Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) states that whoever in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 435 of Indian Penal Code: Mischief by fire or Explosive substances

Section 435 (Now Section 326 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) states that anyone who commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance with an intent to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of Rs. 100 or upwards or Rs. 10 or above shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 439 of CrPC: Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding Bail

Section 439 (Now Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) allows the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail to- a person in custody impose necessary conditions or modify conditions set by a Magistrate Before granting bail to someone accused of an offence triable by the Court of Session or punishable with life imprisonment, notice must be given to the Public Prosecutor.

Judgment and Impact of State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice Syed M. Fazal Ali and Justice P.N. Shinghal clarified in the case of ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ that the rejection of bail at the time of application differs from the cancellation of bail once granted. The Court stated that cancellation can only occur if due to new circumstances retaining the freedom of the accused would hinder a fair trial. 

The Supreme Court held that the Prosecution could seek cancellation of bail by showing the balance of probabilities that the accused had attempted to tamper with or had tampered with witnesses. 

The Supreme Court after analysing the evidence including statements from approvers, witness affidavits and complaints the Court found sufficient proof that the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi had tried to influence the Prosecution witnesses. 

Thus, the Supreme Court in State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi partially allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Delhi High Court. The Court directed the Respondent Sanjay Gandhi to be taken into custody for one month. After the said period, the Respondent could apply for fresh bail.

Conclusion

In State Delhi Administration vs Sanjay Gandhi (1978) the Supreme Court highlighted that the cancellation of bail granted earlier could only be justified if new circumstances arise that hinder a fair trial. The Court found that Sanjay Gandhi had indeed tried to influence prosecution witnesses, thus warranting the cancellation of his bail for one month. The case bolstered the principle that justice must not be obstructed and the rights of the accused must be balanced against the need for a fair trial.