LANDMARK CASE
Vineet Narain v. Union of India
(1998) 1 SCC 226 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal justice
At a glance
- Citation: (1998) 1 SCC 226
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Criminal justice
- In one line: Yes. Directions were issued to make the CBI independent and the CVC statutory.
1 Facts
Journalists alleged that the CBI failed to investigate the Jain hawala diaries implicating politicians.
2 Issue
Can the Court supervise investigations and ensure CBI independence?
3 What the court decided
Yes. Directions were issued to make the CBI independent and the CVC statutory.
4 Why it matters
It developed 'continuing mandamus'.
5 Think about it
What is continuing mandamus?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Criminal justice
- Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14
- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81
- Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
- M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544
- Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of BiharVineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.