Ex-PM Manmohan Singh gets Supreme Court clean chit in coal block scam case after his death

The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a clean chit to former prime minister Manmohan Singh in the coal block allocation scam case, nearly two years after his death. The order by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana brings a legal vindication to Singh, who died in December 2024 while his appeal against the summoning order remained pending before the apex court for more than a decade.

The bench observed that although Singh was no longer alive, the legality of the order summoning him warranted judicial scrutiny.

“Due to the unfortunate demise of the appellant, this appeal could be disposed of as infructuous. But with a view to consider the aspect of the learned special judge taking cognizance and summoning the appellant, we have gone through both closure reports filed by the CBI,” stated the order.

Also Read: Anti-paper leak bill passed by voice vote in Lok Sabha amid opposition uproar

“Having regard to the relevant parameters consistently laid down by this court on acceptance of reports of investigating agency, we are satisfied that there was no reason for the learned judge to turn down closure reports of CBI and take cognisance. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. As a result, we accept the closure reports of CBI and close the matter,” the bench said.

The case pertains to the alleged irregular allocation of the Talabira-II coal block in Odisha to Hindalco Industries during the UPA government’s tenure, when then PM Manmohan Singh also held the coal portfolio.

In March 2015, Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar rejected the CBI’s closure report and summoned Singh, industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, former coal secretary P C Parakh, Hindalco Industries, and company officials Shubhendu Amitabh and D Bhattacharya.

They were summoned on charges including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Also Read: ‘No student is idiot or andhbhakt’: BJP slams Rahul for remarks in Lok Sabha

The CBI had initially named Birla, Parakh, Hindalco Industries and others in its FIR but later filed closure reports, saying there was no prosecutable case.

The trial court, however, refused to accept the reports and directed the agency to further examine Singh and senior PMO officials, including then-Principal Secretary T K A Nair and then-Private Secretary B V R Subramanyam, before summoning the accused.

Singh challenged the summons in the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court had erred in taking cognisance despite the investigating agency finding no prosecutable case. He also questioned the absence of the mandatory sanction required to prosecute a public servant and denied any criminality in the coal block allocation decision.

The apex court stayed the summons in April 2015, preventing him from facing trial.

Also Read: 28-year-old woman PhD scholar dies of electrocution on Panjab University campus

The appeal remained pending for over 11 years, and the Supreme Court has now disposed of the matter as infructuous, bringing to a close the proceedings against the former prime minister who died on December 26, 2024, at the age of 92.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Singh’s legal representatives, urged the court to erase the adverse findings recorded by the trial court.

Sibal submitted that the trial judge had effectively imposed vicarious criminal liability on the former prime minister despite two closure reports exonerating him. “One of the cases concerns Dr Manmohan Singh. We want the adverse comments and remarks against him to go. The trial court has imposed vicarious liability on him and summoned him despite two closure reports for want of evidence,” he argued.

Senior advocate R S Cheema appearing for CBI pointed out that the impugned order also involved other accused and raised issues concerning the constitutional validity of provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted that some legal issues may survive independently.