“Complaint should be comprehensive and not merely consist of some letters”

Drawing a distinction between filing a complaint and taking cognisance of an offence, Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati asserted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday that cognisance is different from the initiation of proceedings.

“Cognisance is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the magistrate or the judge. For taking cognisance, the magistrate or the judge must apply his mind on the material before him.”


Appearing for the Prime Minister in the 2G spectrum case, the AG quoted several High Court and Supreme Court judgments. He said the complaint should be comprehensive and not merely consist of some letters.

“The law in this regard is very clear and this was the position in [Janata Party president] Subramanian Swamy's case since November 2008 when he wrote the first letter to the Prime Minister, and followed it up with several more. The question of granting sanction prior to even filing a complaint was entirely premature.”

However, Dr. Swamy contended that under the law he could either directly approach the court or the Prime Minister for seeking prosecution of a Minister if there was enough material. This route would save the time of the court, which would not take cognisance without proper sanction. He took exception to the stand that he was a nobody and that the Prime Minister was not bound to take any action on his complaint.

When Justice Ganguly wanted to know whether the three-month time limit would apply to private complaints or only to cases investigated and charge sheets already filed, he said: “There was no mention about private complaints in the judgment and the time has come for the court to lay down further guidelines on private citizens approaching the court in corruption cases.”