9.5.13

SC on the CBI


The Supreme Court came down hard on the CBI calling it a “caged parrot that only speaks its master’s voice” — referring to its lack of autonomy.
Pulling up the agency for sharing its draft coal scam probe report with law minister Ashwani Kumar and an official each from the prime minister’s office (PMO) and the coal ministry, a bench headed by justice RM Lodha said, “The heart of the report was changed on the suggestions of government officials.”
Pointing out that “the job of the CBI is not to interact with government officials but to interrogate,” the SC threatened to step in if the Centre fails to work towards making the agency a wholly independent body. To insulate the CBI from external “pulls and pressures”, it directed the Centre to come out with a law to fix the problem before July 10.
The SC’s stand towards the government officials at the heart of the controversy was, however, relatively less harsh. On Kumar’s role, it said a minister can ask for a report, but can’t interfere with the CBI probe.
Referring to the PMO and coal ministry joint secretaries, the court asked, “What business do the two joint secretaries have in visiting the CBI office?”
Meanwhile, attorney general GE Vahanvati, accused of making changes in the probe report, claimed that his meeting with CBI officials “took place only on suggestions of the law minister”.

After delivering a three-hour tongue-lashing to the government and the CBI, the Supreme Court on Wednesday announced a slew of special measures to restore the sanctity of the coal scam investigation and set a two-month deadline for initiating systemic reforms to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures.
On the role played by the two joint secretaries, the court said, “They could have gone to the CBI at the instance of somebody or might have gone there by themselves. There are some people who are more pious than the Pope.”
If the government and CBI do not show any improvement in their conduct, the court indicated that it might consider the suggestion of the petitioner’s counsel, Prashant Bhushan, to set up an SIT.
The cause for judicial umbrage was Sinha’s admission that in the status report on an ongoing preliminary enquiry, “the tentative finding about non-existence of a system regarding allocation of specific weightage/points was deleted at the instance of the officials of PMO and ministry of Coal”. Though Sinha claimed in his affidavit that this deletion was “acceptable”, the bench said that the paragraph concerned “was the heart of the report and yet that was amended”. It wondered: “How on earth could the CBI allow this?”
The court said the CBI must ensure there will be no interaction with any person without permission of the court and no one will be allowed to peruse the status report. It also demanded an undertaking from the agency that no one will get access to the periodical reports.
Indicating it will step in if the government dithers on giving “statutory shape and sanction to shield CBI”, the bench said, “If Parliament does it we welcome that but if something is lacking, the Supreme Court has to fill the gap. The legal face of the government of India must tell us what can be done,” Justice Lodha said, addressing attorney general G E Vahanvati and solicitor general Mohan Parasaran.
As Vahanvati promised to seek instructions from the government, the court made a sardonic remark on the neglect of its landmark verdict in the Jain Hawala case. “We gave the CBI a structure of bricks but it appears that 15 years all that remains is sand,” it said.
Significantly, Vahanvati denied Sinha’s revelation that he too had contributed to the changes in the status report. “I have neither asked nor got the status report,” Vahanvati said. “My meeting with CBI officials took place only on the suggestion of the law minister.” Luckily for the law officer, the bench did not question him on his conduct in the matter.

No comments: