download-judgmentThe Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed the FIR filed against state Governor Ram Naresh Yadav in connection with the MP Professional Examination Board (MPPEB) scam – VYAPAM Scam.
The FIR was quashed by a division bench of MP High Court citing immunity under provisions of Article 361 (2) and Article 361 (3)   of the Constitution of India.

Case No. Writ Petition No. 3346 of 2015
Case Title Shri Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of M.P. and others
Coram
  • Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice
  • Justice Rohit Arya, J.
Counsel
  • For Petitioner: Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate
  • For State: Ravish Chandra Agrawal, Advocate General

On April 17, the high court had stayed his arrest and the FIR lodged by Special Task Force (STF) against Yadav in scam case. Yadav had challenged the FIR claiming that he was immune to such action due to his constitutional authority.

Ram Naresh Yadav was represented by Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani.

Bench observed:

…while dealing with the primary question of extent of immunity and privilege extended to the Head of a State, during his term of office, which answers the jurisdictional fact, we proceed to quash the impugned FIR qua the petitioner on that count alone, with liberty to the police to proceed in accordance with law, after the petitioner ceases to be the Governor. For, the immunity and privilege is only during the term of office. At the same time the immunity and privilege extended to the Governor will not impair or whittle down the powers of the police to investigate the
criminal case registered against other accused who cannot claim such privilege and in the process, record statement of the petitioner, if required. We say so because the immunity in Article 361 (2) or 361 (3) does not extend to recording of statement of the Head of a State by the police in connection with investigation of a crime, if it is so essential.

However Court observed that police can proceed against Yadav after he ceases to be a governor. It held:

…we allow this petition and direct effacement of the name of petitioner as accused No.10 from the impugned First
Information Report… and with further liberty to proceed against the petitioner if necessary, after he ceases to be the Governor of the State.

Continue Reading