Court says claim based on non-existent framework; finds no legal right to seek reward from CBI
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a monetary reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation for information on illegal luxury car imports.
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to claim such a reward from the CBI.
The Court noted that the CBI does not have any scheme or policy to grant rewards to informers. Therefore, the petitioner could not rely on guidelines applicable to other agencies.
The petition was filed by M.J. Sankar.
He challenged a communication dated May 12, 2023, by which the CBI rejected his claim for a reward.
Sankar claimed that he and his father had given crucial information in 2008 about illegal import of luxury cars.
According to him, that information led to seizures and detection of large-scale customs duty evasion.
The petitioner further stated that authorities had earlier paid a “token reward”.
On that basis, he claimed entitlement to a balance reward amount.
He sought directions to process and pay the alleged balance amount.
The main issue before the Court was whether the petitioner had any legal entitlement to claim a reward from the CBI.
The claim arose from information allegedly supplied by him about criminal activity.
Justice Chandira noted that the CBI does not operate any informer reward scheme.
The Court compared this position with certain other agencies, such as the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which follow specific reward guidelines.
The Court held that the petitioner had wrongly relied on guidelines meant for other agencies.
It said those guidelines cannot apply to the CBI unless the CBI adopts a similar scheme.
Since no such scheme existed, the petitioner could not claim any enforceable right.
The Court also found that the petitioner failed to produce material evidence to support his claim.
He did not produce proof to show that he had supplied actionable information.
He also failed to prove that authorities had paid him any earlier reward.
The Bench noted inconsistencies in his case. It also referred to the unexplained delay in pursuing the claim.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had sought similar relief in earlier proceedings.
Criticising the repeated litigation, the Court observed that the petitioner was “barking up the wrong tree”.
It also said that he was trying to enforce a claim based on a “non-existent set of guidelines”.
The Court expressed displeasure over successive petitions on the same issue. It observed that such conduct wasted judicial time.
The Madras High Court held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to claim a reward from the CBI.
It also held that the CBI’s rejection of his claim did not require interference.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
However, it declined to impose costs because the petitioner appeared in person.
At the same time, the Court cautioned him against filing repeated and unmeritorious litigation.
