The CBI’s formal acknowledgment to the Supreme Court that, on the demand
of Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, it shared the status report of its
investigations on the Coalgate scam with bureaucrats in the PMO and
Coal Ministry shows how deeply the agency stands compromised. The fact
that the CBI Director has now assured the court that the bureau’s future
status reports “shall not be shared with any [member of the] political
executive” is ample proof that the CBI knew its original action was a
serious transgression of procedure. But for the fact that the story got
leaked, the CBI would probably have continued “consulting” the political
executive. While sharing the status report with the Law Minister prior
to filing it in the Supreme Court is bad enough, the fact that the CBI
was happy to have its findings shown to bureaucrats from the very
ministries that are under investigation borders on interference with the
criminal justice system. The Supreme Court must now reprimand and
punish those responsible for this subversion of the court’s directions,
especially since ensuring the CBI’s independence of action has been its
fundamental objective from the time of the Vineet Narain case. More
importantly, the Law Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office must now
be asked to provide affidavits on the matter and undertake never to
interfere in the work of the CBI in this manner.
This is not a first for CBI when it comes to big cases. Even where the
2G investigation is concerned, the agency has shown signs of being
subservient to the political leadership. After an initial burst of
action, it delayed its probe in the spectrum scam till after the release
of the CAG’s report made further inaction politically untenable. While
concluding in its chargesheet of April 2011 that former Telecom Minister
A. Raja “misled” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it ignored documents
that suggested the government approved of Mr. Raja’s actions. Apart from
shoddy investigation, the 2G investigation shows the multiplicity of
contradiction and instances where even file notings have been reproduced
wrongly in the chargesheet. The CBI’s probes into opposition leaders
like Mulayam Singh, Mayawati and Jagan Reddy have also raised eyebrows.
But in Coalgate, the premier investigating agency has been caught
red-handed taking the highest court for a ride despite being under its
constant monitor and supervision. The intention is clearly to subvert
justice and undermine an agency tasked by the Supreme Court with
ensuring probity. The people of India deserve to know the identity of
all those within government who undertook — or tolerated — this latest
assault on the CBI’s ‘independence.’
-The Hindu
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ripped apart the myth of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s autonomy on Tuesday by exposing that it was under the thumb of the government of the day. The apex court tore into the government for seeking to vet the CBI’s status report to the SC on the Coalgate scam (which TOI first broke on March 22, 2012) and subvert it.
The court didn’t mince words while saying that the government’s attempt to change the investigation status report and the CBI’s attempt to mislead the court on whether it had shared the report with anyone was tantamount to “a vital erosion of trust”.
A three-member bench, comprising Justices R M Lodha, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, questioned the legal authority of law minister Ashwani Kumar and PMO and coal ministry officials to summon the draft CBI investigation status report. It said this action had “shaken” the very foundation of an independent probe and dismissed the minister’s defence that he was entitled to go through the contents of the status report.
The stinging observations which peppered the much-awaited hearing in the politicallycharged case also focused the spotlight on the CBI’s autonomy with the SC vowing to free the investigating agency of political and bureaucratic interference. (This paper had on Saturday front-paged an editorial asking for the CBI to be rid of political interference and be made truly autonomous).
The bench said it would remain engaged with the case; it would find out who tampered with the status report and for whose benefit.
“If we find that the investigation has been influenced by someone who had no business to do so then the necessary inference is that the investigation is a farce. The case will then have to be investigated by either a SpecialInvestigationTeam (SIT) or some other method. Something will have to be done if it was done to shield someone. If that is found to be true, then it is very serious and the reaction will be very different,” it said.
What is going to be equally embarrassing for the government and the CBI is the direction from the court to CBI director Ranjit Sinha to file an affidavit by Monday disclosing two facts—who made what changes at whose instance in the draft report, and name the persons in addition to the law minister and officials who perused the draft report prior to its filing in the Supreme Court on March 8.
The court also asked the CBI to stop moving on the “crutches of the executive”. I’m only a part of govt, says CBI chief
Afew hours after the Supreme Court made scathing observations on the CBI’s functioning, agency chief Ranjit Sinha said he was only part of the government and took instructions from it. “I am a part of the government. I have not shown sensitive information to an outsider. I have shown it to the law minister,” he said. However, soon after the remarks went viral on TV, a CBI spokesperson clarified that Sinha only meant that “CBI does not exist in isolation”.
Raval quits, is Coalgate’s first casualty
Additional solicitor general Harin Raval quit on Tuesday, hours after the Supreme Court tore into CBI for misleading it. Raval had triggered the latest controversy in the Coalgate episode by giving the apex court a false assurance on March 12 that CBI’s probe status report was not shared with the political executive. With the court taking exception to his misleading statement and his launching a sudden vitriolic attack on attorney general G E Vahanvati, Raval’s place among the law officers understandably became untenable—both on propriety and politically.
Slap On Face For CBI, Govt; SC Says Law Minister Had No Authority To Vet Coalgate Report
Compromised Bureau of Investigation
SC Vows To Rid Agency Of All Interference
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ripped apart the myth of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s autonomy on Tuesday by exposing that it was under the thumb of the government of the day. The apex court tore into the government for seeking to vet the CBI’s status report to the SC on the Coalgate scam (which TOI first broke on March 22, 2012) and subvert it.
The court didn’t mince words while saying that the government’s attempt to change the investigation status report and the CBI’s attempt to mislead the court on whether it had shared the report with anyone was tantamount to “a vital erosion of trust”.
A three-member bench, comprising Justices R M Lodha, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, questioned the legal authority of law minister Ashwani Kumar and PMO and coal ministry officials to summon the draft CBI investigation status report. It said this action had “shaken” the very foundation of an independent probe and dismissed the minister’s defence that he was entitled to go through the contents of the status report.
The stinging observations which peppered the much-awaited hearing in the politicallycharged case also focused the spotlight on the CBI’s autonomy with the SC vowing to free the investigating agency of political and bureaucratic interference. (This paper had on Saturday front-paged an editorial asking for the CBI to be rid of political interference and be made truly autonomous).
The bench said it would remain engaged with the case; it would find out who tampered with the status report and for whose benefit.
“If we find that the investigation has been influenced by someone who had no business to do so then the necessary inference is that the investigation is a farce. The case will then have to be investigated by either a SpecialInvestigationTeam (SIT) or some other method. Something will have to be done if it was done to shield someone. If that is found to be true, then it is very serious and the reaction will be very different,” it said.
What is going to be equally embarrassing for the government and the CBI is the direction from the court to CBI director Ranjit Sinha to file an affidavit by Monday disclosing two facts—who made what changes at whose instance in the draft report, and name the persons in addition to the law minister and officials who perused the draft report prior to its filing in the Supreme Court on March 8.
The court also asked the CBI to stop moving on the “crutches of the executive”. I’m only a part of govt, says CBI chief
Afew hours after the Supreme Court made scathing observations on the CBI’s functioning, agency chief Ranjit Sinha said he was only part of the government and took instructions from it. “I am a part of the government. I have not shown sensitive information to an outsider. I have shown it to the law minister,” he said. However, soon after the remarks went viral on TV, a CBI spokesperson clarified that Sinha only meant that “CBI does not exist in isolation”.
Raval quits, is Coalgate’s first casualty
Additional solicitor general Harin Raval quit on Tuesday, hours after the Supreme Court tore into CBI for misleading it. Raval had triggered the latest controversy in the Coalgate episode by giving the apex court a false assurance on March 12 that CBI’s probe status report was not shared with the political executive. With the court taking exception to his misleading statement and his launching a sudden vitriolic attack on attorney general G E Vahanvati, Raval’s place among the law officers understandably became untenable—both on propriety and politically.
‘TELL US WHO SAW REPORT’ SO SAID THE JUDGES
First thing we have to do is to liberate (CBI) from political interference, liberate it from external infl uence, interference and intrusion. This is the primary task now
The cloud of suspicion over CBI’s impartiality must be lifted. Place before us the CVs of all offi cers… we have to ensure that they are of impeccable integrity
In this case there are serious allegations against political functionaries…where is the occasion for the CBI to share the status report with others? Does this not result in erosion of the trust reposed in you by the court?
Show us any law which authorizes a minister to summon probe status report prior to its submission to the court in a case which is being scrutinized judicially COURT’S QUERIES 1 Why didn’t CBI disclose to the SC that draft report was shared with political executive? 2 Why did ASG Raval say the report hadn’t been shared with anyone and that it was for the court’s eyes alone? 3 Now that CBI says the status report was shared with the law minister and PMO, what changes were made and at whose instance? 4 Who are the 2 officials in PMO and coal ministry who had sought the report? 5 What’s the procedure being followed by the CBI on sharing status reports with regard to ongoing investigations that are called for by the court? FUTURE TENSE
Huge embarrassment for government. Ashwani Kumar (pic) may not step down right away, but cost of retaining him as law minister rises sharply. Even PM is likely to feel heat as report was shared with PMO
Court might walk the talk and set agenda for CBI’s autonomy. Judicial oversight of Coalgate very likely now
Big blow to attorney-general Vahanvati. ASG Raval has already bowed out
Gloves off. Cong-BJP communications have snapped. Passage of land acquisition and food security bills bleak. Govt might have to bring ordinances on them Raval’s lie has shifted judicial focus on coal scam, says SC
The bench wanted to know why and on whose instructions additional solicitor general Harin Raval had lied to the court on March 12 that the probe status report was not shared with the political executive.
It said if it had not nailed the lie by asking the CBI director to endorse the ASG’s statement, things would have been swept under the carpet. It questioned the CBI’s pliancy in rushing to the political executive and bureaucrats with a draft status report and asked: “Show us from the CBI manual or any law which authorizes a minister to summon a probe status report prior to its submission to the court in a case which is pending judicial scrutiny.”
The bench said Raval’s lie has shifted the judicial focus on the coal scam and now its primary task was to make the CBI independent of political interference in letter and spirit and ensure it was free of all “external influence, intrusion and considerations”.On the CBI showing the draft report to law minister as per his desire, the bench gave a dressing down to the CBI and said: “Maybe somebody desired something but as investigating agency you know your role. You are the master of investigation and while investigating a matter, you have no masters, be it for good or bad reasons.”
“Does this not vitally erode the trust the court had reposed in the CBI? Are you not guided by the criminal procedure code? This (sharing of the probe status report with political executive) has shaken the very foundation of the investigation. This is a premier investigating agency and it has to do something that enhances its impartiality, credibility and independence,” the court said.
It asked the CBI’s new counsel, senior advocate U U Lalit, attorney general G E Vahanvati, and advocate for petitioners, Prashant Bhushan and M L Sharma, to suggest methods to insulate the CBI from every kind of interference and influence and restore the glory of the premier investigating agency.
March 2012 | CAG’s draft report accuses govt of ‘inefficient’ allocating coal blocks 2004–2009
May 29 | PM Manmohan Singh offers to give up his public life if found guilty in this scam
May 31 | CVC, based on a complaint of two BJP MPs — Prakash Javadekar and Hansraj Ahir — directs a CBI enquiry
Aug 17 | CAG’s Coalgate report tabled in Parliament
Aug 21 | BJP stalls Parliament, demands PM’s resignation
Aug 22 | Coal min Jaiswal claims coal-rich states opposed bidding
Aug 25 | Govt claims CAG’s presumptive loss theory flawed, no mining yet
August 27 | PM under direct attack from Opposition to resign says CAG flawed. “The observations of the CAG are clearly disputable”
Aug 29 | Kapil Sibal says coal block allocation began in NDA times
Aug 30 | Sonia Gandhi challenges BJP to Coalgate debate
Sept 1 | Minister S K Sahay refuses to resign over allocation of block to his brother Sept 2 | CBI team leaves for Chhattisgarh & Jharkhand
Sept 3 | Inter-ministerial group meets over 58 coal blocks, tells cos to explain delay in mining
Sept 4 | CBI raids 30 locations in 10 cities: Delhi, Mumbai Kolkata, Nagpur, Patna, Ranchi, Raipur, Dhanbad, Yavatmal, Bhilai
Sep 6 | PIL in SC seeks cancellation of 194 coal block allotments
March 5, 2013 | CBI meets law minister Ashwani Kumar “as desired by him” in presence of two senior babus, one from the PMO, one from coal min
March 12 | SC tells CBI not to share probe details with govt
April 19 | BJP demands PM’s resignation
April 23 | Standing Committee on Coal and Steel tables report in Parliament. Says coal blocks distributed between 1993-2008 done in unauthorized manner. Says allotment of mines where production not started should be cancelled
April 26 | CBI boss Ranjit Sinha submits affidavit saying report shared with Ashwani Kumar
April 29 | CBI tells SC govt changed 20% of its original report
April 29 | ASG Harin Raval writes explosive letter to Attorney General GE Vahanvati saying the latter misrepresented facts to SC over sharing probe details with govt, forcing Raval to take the same stand April 30 SC directs CBI to file a “candid and truthful” affidavit by May 6 on 1 Why status report dated 8/3/13 was shared with officials & political bosses 2 Why CBI said in court it was not shared 3 Why did April 26 affidavit not contain what changes were made, at whose instance 4 What’s CBI protocol on sharing of status reports 5 CBI must provide profiles of senior officials probing coal scam.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday virtually rejected the government’s argument that the law minister was entitled to supervise the drafting of CBI’s Coalgate report, saying the assertion ran contrary to SC’s 1997 ruling in the Vineet Narain case.
Upset by law minister Ashwani Kumar, who isn’t the supervising minister for CBI vetting the agency’s coal scam status report, a bench of Justices R M Lodha, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph cited the 1997 judgment to stress that only the supervising ministry can give broad policy directions to CBI regarding a class of cases and seek updates on the progress of investigation. “This is being misconstrued to interfere with investigation,” the bench said, virtually rebuking the government’s defence that Kumar as law minister was legally competent to go through the CBI report and suggest changes.
The CBI reports to the department of personnel and training whose overall charge is with PM Manmohan Singh. The bench said that the 1997 judgment allowing the ministry supervising CBI the authority to give broad policy directions in certain cases and seek status of probe doesn’t extend to a case where government functionaries are the accused. “How does one reconcile this with the investigation into allegations against government functionaries? Does the minister have the power to call for progress in investigation? This frustrates the very purpose.”
It was the frustration over the political executive’s moves to scuttle probes in cases involving political bigwigs that had led SC in 1997 to define who among the ministers should have a supervisory role over CBI. Dealing with Vineet Narain’s PIL, the court realized that the mafia and crime syndicates thrived because of the reluctance of law enforcing agencies – police, CBI and Enforcement Directorate - to act against them because they feared retributive action from the political executive.
As a first step, the court had desired to free investigating agencies from the political executive, but the then attorney-general had put up a caveat in the form of a note from a Union cabinet minister. The minister had requested the court to keep in mind that the “ultimate responsibility for the functioning of these agencies to Parliament is that of the minister concerned”.
The court said it had never intended to dilute the in-charge minister’s general power to review working of these agencies and give broad policy directions.
“However, all the powers of the minister are subject to the condition that none of them would extend to permit the minister to interfere with the probe and prosecution in any individual case and in that respect the officers concerned are to be governed entirely by the mandate of the law and statutory duty cast upon them,” the court had said.
After referring to the Vineet Narain judgment, the bench said the primary task now was to free CBI from the clutches and crutches of the political executive and bureaucrats and restore its glory.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common cause, said the two-year tenure for the CBI director to make him independent of the political executive has been subverted by governments, which lure CBI chiefs with post-retirement posts.
The bench said: “We have to bring clarity in certain paragraphs of the Vineet Narain judgment. What actually was meant to be achieved but what has been understood (by the political class).”
WHAT’S FISHY
What isn’t right in law?
Law minister and CBI director conferred in putting together status report to SC in Coalgate case. SC is monitoring the case
Why is this wrong? CBI is supposed to work on its own, operates under and should be loyal only to CrPC
What does SC insist on?
Investigator must strictly do everything in accordance with law, especially so because the accused are in high places of authority
What does CBI director say in his affidavit? He and law minister Ashwani Kumar met and Sinha shared the status report with Kumar “as desired”
What SC found even more foul The Court had been led to believe that there was no such sharing
Did the law minister make changes? This is a question currently under debate. The opposition is convinced he did
SUPREME QUOTE
We should see that CBI is not maligned because of interference in investigation by political executive
The cloud of suspicion over the CBI ... must be lifted before proceeding with the coal scam case
As investigating agency you know your role. You are the master of investigation and while investigating a case you have no masters and no one can interfere with the investigation for good or bad reasons
This (sharing of the probe status report with political executive) has shaken the very foundation of the investigation
It (CBI) has to do something that enhances its impartiality, credibility and independence What were the changes made in the draft report? Even today we are in the dark about it. Why? CBI REPORT CARD — THE BIG FISH
Bofors scandal Case as good as buried after CBI withdraws case against Quattrochi
Lakhu Bhai Pathak cheating case Narasimha Rao acquitted. CBI never appealed
JMM MPs’ bribery case Rao acquitted due to CBI reluctance to stay the course
Babri Masjid demolition
Over 2 decades later CBI cases still far from completion
Lalu Prasad assets case CBI refused to appeal against HC acquittal of Lalu
Cases against Maya, MSY Constant flip-flops by CBI
Jain Hawala case CBI could not sustain chargesheet
First thing we have to do is to liberate (CBI) from political interference, liberate it from external infl uence, interference and intrusion. This is the primary task now
The cloud of suspicion over CBI’s impartiality must be lifted. Place before us the CVs of all offi cers… we have to ensure that they are of impeccable integrity
In this case there are serious allegations against political functionaries…where is the occasion for the CBI to share the status report with others? Does this not result in erosion of the trust reposed in you by the court?
Show us any law which authorizes a minister to summon probe status report prior to its submission to the court in a case which is being scrutinized judicially COURT’S QUERIES 1 Why didn’t CBI disclose to the SC that draft report was shared with political executive? 2 Why did ASG Raval say the report hadn’t been shared with anyone and that it was for the court’s eyes alone? 3 Now that CBI says the status report was shared with the law minister and PMO, what changes were made and at whose instance? 4 Who are the 2 officials in PMO and coal ministry who had sought the report? 5 What’s the procedure being followed by the CBI on sharing status reports with regard to ongoing investigations that are called for by the court? FUTURE TENSE
Huge embarrassment for government. Ashwani Kumar (pic) may not step down right away, but cost of retaining him as law minister rises sharply. Even PM is likely to feel heat as report was shared with PMO
Court might walk the talk and set agenda for CBI’s autonomy. Judicial oversight of Coalgate very likely now
Big blow to attorney-general Vahanvati. ASG Raval has already bowed out
Gloves off. Cong-BJP communications have snapped. Passage of land acquisition and food security bills bleak. Govt might have to bring ordinances on them Raval’s lie has shifted judicial focus on coal scam, says SC
The bench wanted to know why and on whose instructions additional solicitor general Harin Raval had lied to the court on March 12 that the probe status report was not shared with the political executive.
It said if it had not nailed the lie by asking the CBI director to endorse the ASG’s statement, things would have been swept under the carpet. It questioned the CBI’s pliancy in rushing to the political executive and bureaucrats with a draft status report and asked: “Show us from the CBI manual or any law which authorizes a minister to summon a probe status report prior to its submission to the court in a case which is pending judicial scrutiny.”
The bench said Raval’s lie has shifted the judicial focus on the coal scam and now its primary task was to make the CBI independent of political interference in letter and spirit and ensure it was free of all “external influence, intrusion and considerations”.On the CBI showing the draft report to law minister as per his desire, the bench gave a dressing down to the CBI and said: “Maybe somebody desired something but as investigating agency you know your role. You are the master of investigation and while investigating a matter, you have no masters, be it for good or bad reasons.”
“Does this not vitally erode the trust the court had reposed in the CBI? Are you not guided by the criminal procedure code? This (sharing of the probe status report with political executive) has shaken the very foundation of the investigation. This is a premier investigating agency and it has to do something that enhances its impartiality, credibility and independence,” the court said.
It asked the CBI’s new counsel, senior advocate U U Lalit, attorney general G E Vahanvati, and advocate for petitioners, Prashant Bhushan and M L Sharma, to suggest methods to insulate the CBI from every kind of interference and influence and restore the glory of the premier investigating agency.
BLOCK BY BLOCK
Tracking the scandal over the allocation of coal blocks, the government’s response, its decision to take a sneak peek at the CBI’s status report and tailor it and the sharp court reprimand over it
March 2012 | CAG’s draft report accuses govt of ‘inefficient’ allocating coal blocks 2004–2009
May 29 | PM Manmohan Singh offers to give up his public life if found guilty in this scam
May 31 | CVC, based on a complaint of two BJP MPs — Prakash Javadekar and Hansraj Ahir — directs a CBI enquiry
Aug 17 | CAG’s Coalgate report tabled in Parliament
Aug 21 | BJP stalls Parliament, demands PM’s resignation
Aug 22 | Coal min Jaiswal claims coal-rich states opposed bidding
Aug 25 | Govt claims CAG’s presumptive loss theory flawed, no mining yet
August 27 | PM under direct attack from Opposition to resign says CAG flawed. “The observations of the CAG are clearly disputable”
Aug 29 | Kapil Sibal says coal block allocation began in NDA times
Aug 30 | Sonia Gandhi challenges BJP to Coalgate debate
Sept 1 | Minister S K Sahay refuses to resign over allocation of block to his brother Sept 2 | CBI team leaves for Chhattisgarh & Jharkhand
Sept 3 | Inter-ministerial group meets over 58 coal blocks, tells cos to explain delay in mining
Sept 4 | CBI raids 30 locations in 10 cities: Delhi, Mumbai Kolkata, Nagpur, Patna, Ranchi, Raipur, Dhanbad, Yavatmal, Bhilai
Sep 6 | PIL in SC seeks cancellation of 194 coal block allotments
March 5, 2013 | CBI meets law minister Ashwani Kumar “as desired by him” in presence of two senior babus, one from the PMO, one from coal min
March 12 | SC tells CBI not to share probe details with govt
April 19 | BJP demands PM’s resignation
April 23 | Standing Committee on Coal and Steel tables report in Parliament. Says coal blocks distributed between 1993-2008 done in unauthorized manner. Says allotment of mines where production not started should be cancelled
April 26 | CBI boss Ranjit Sinha submits affidavit saying report shared with Ashwani Kumar
April 29 | CBI tells SC govt changed 20% of its original report
April 29 | ASG Harin Raval writes explosive letter to Attorney General GE Vahanvati saying the latter misrepresented facts to SC over sharing probe details with govt, forcing Raval to take the same stand April 30 SC directs CBI to file a “candid and truthful” affidavit by May 6 on 1 Why status report dated 8/3/13 was shared with officials & political bosses 2 Why CBI said in court it was not shared 3 Why did April 26 affidavit not contain what changes were made, at whose instance 4 What’s CBI protocol on sharing of status reports 5 CBI must provide profiles of senior officials probing coal scam.
COALGATE BLACKENS CBI, SC LIVID
Law Minister Wrong In Vetting Report: Court
Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday virtually rejected the government’s argument that the law minister was entitled to supervise the drafting of CBI’s Coalgate report, saying the assertion ran contrary to SC’s 1997 ruling in the Vineet Narain case.
Upset by law minister Ashwani Kumar, who isn’t the supervising minister for CBI vetting the agency’s coal scam status report, a bench of Justices R M Lodha, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph cited the 1997 judgment to stress that only the supervising ministry can give broad policy directions to CBI regarding a class of cases and seek updates on the progress of investigation. “This is being misconstrued to interfere with investigation,” the bench said, virtually rebuking the government’s defence that Kumar as law minister was legally competent to go through the CBI report and suggest changes.
The CBI reports to the department of personnel and training whose overall charge is with PM Manmohan Singh. The bench said that the 1997 judgment allowing the ministry supervising CBI the authority to give broad policy directions in certain cases and seek status of probe doesn’t extend to a case where government functionaries are the accused. “How does one reconcile this with the investigation into allegations against government functionaries? Does the minister have the power to call for progress in investigation? This frustrates the very purpose.”
It was the frustration over the political executive’s moves to scuttle probes in cases involving political bigwigs that had led SC in 1997 to define who among the ministers should have a supervisory role over CBI. Dealing with Vineet Narain’s PIL, the court realized that the mafia and crime syndicates thrived because of the reluctance of law enforcing agencies – police, CBI and Enforcement Directorate - to act against them because they feared retributive action from the political executive.
As a first step, the court had desired to free investigating agencies from the political executive, but the then attorney-general had put up a caveat in the form of a note from a Union cabinet minister. The minister had requested the court to keep in mind that the “ultimate responsibility for the functioning of these agencies to Parliament is that of the minister concerned”.
The court said it had never intended to dilute the in-charge minister’s general power to review working of these agencies and give broad policy directions.
“However, all the powers of the minister are subject to the condition that none of them would extend to permit the minister to interfere with the probe and prosecution in any individual case and in that respect the officers concerned are to be governed entirely by the mandate of the law and statutory duty cast upon them,” the court had said.
After referring to the Vineet Narain judgment, the bench said the primary task now was to free CBI from the clutches and crutches of the political executive and bureaucrats and restore its glory.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common cause, said the two-year tenure for the CBI director to make him independent of the political executive has been subverted by governments, which lure CBI chiefs with post-retirement posts.
The bench said: “We have to bring clarity in certain paragraphs of the Vineet Narain judgment. What actually was meant to be achieved but what has been understood (by the political class).”
WHAT’S FISHY
What isn’t right in law?
Law minister and CBI director conferred in putting together status report to SC in Coalgate case. SC is monitoring the case
Why is this wrong? CBI is supposed to work on its own, operates under and should be loyal only to CrPC
What does SC insist on?
Investigator must strictly do everything in accordance with law, especially so because the accused are in high places of authority
What does CBI director say in his affidavit? He and law minister Ashwani Kumar met and Sinha shared the status report with Kumar “as desired”
What SC found even more foul The Court had been led to believe that there was no such sharing
Did the law minister make changes? This is a question currently under debate. The opposition is convinced he did
SUPREME QUOTE
We should see that CBI is not maligned because of interference in investigation by political executive
The cloud of suspicion over the CBI ... must be lifted before proceeding with the coal scam case
As investigating agency you know your role. You are the master of investigation and while investigating a case you have no masters and no one can interfere with the investigation for good or bad reasons
This (sharing of the probe status report with political executive) has shaken the very foundation of the investigation
It (CBI) has to do something that enhances its impartiality, credibility and independence What were the changes made in the draft report? Even today we are in the dark about it. Why? CBI REPORT CARD — THE BIG FISH
Bofors scandal Case as good as buried after CBI withdraws case against Quattrochi
Lakhu Bhai Pathak cheating case Narasimha Rao acquitted. CBI never appealed
JMM MPs’ bribery case Rao acquitted due to CBI reluctance to stay the course
Babri Masjid demolition
Over 2 decades later CBI cases still far from completion
Lalu Prasad assets case CBI refused to appeal against HC acquittal of Lalu
Cases against Maya, MSY Constant flip-flops by CBI
Jain Hawala case CBI could not sustain chargesheet
No comments:
Post a Comment