http://m.indianexpress.com/news/a-cbi-with-agency/1109356/
A CBI with agency
Maneesh Chhibber : Tue Apr 30 2013, 00:45
hrs
Will Supreme Court use the opportunity to
free it from government shackles?
Today, April 30, a three-judge bench of
the Supreme Court will take up CBI
Director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit admitting
that the agency's status report in the coal
blocks allocation scam had been shown to
Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar "as
desired by him". The affidavit further
states that the report was also shared with
senior functionaries of the PMO and the
Union coal ministry. Will the bench treat
the UPA's latest thinly-veiled attempt to
interfere in the functioning of the CBI as
an opportunity to finally free the probe
agency of government's shackles?
The court can either use this opportunity
to set a historic benchmark, as in the Jain
hawala case and the Central Vigilance
Commissioner P.J. Thomas judgment, or
treat it as just another routine case. While
the government would like everyone to
believe that there is nothing wrong if a
law minister and officers of various
departments go through a yet-to-be-
submitted status report in a scam, the
court's response to the serious
transgression could prove to be the
proverbial last nail in the coffin.
There are certain questions that the
government and the CBI must answer
before claiming the benefit of doubt. Since
the CBI director had already shown the
report to the law minister and senior
officers "as desired by them", why did the
probe agency go through the charade of
submitting the report in a sealed cover in
court? Also, if Additional Solicitor General
Harin Raval was present when the law
minister went through the report, why did
he assert that the report had not been
shared with anyone in the political
executive? As for the definition of
"political executive", if Ashwani Kumar
really feels that the "law minister is not
the political executive in terms of
administrative control of CBI", the prime
minister must remove him for
incompetence.
The CBI director's affidavit, however, does
clearly indicate that he understands that
the law minister is part of the "political
executive". Sinha must now clarify in
what manner and form the law minister
and others "desired" when they asked him
to share the status report. Did he or his
colleagues do the bidding after receiving
phone calls or did they get emails or more
formal written communications? More
importantly, did these orders come from
mere joint secretaries or their seniors? Or
maybe the court will ask these questions
of him at the next hearing.
Also, who asked the joint secretaries in the
PMO and the coal ministry to see the
report? Were they acting on orders from
superiors? Did the prime minister know
about the desire? Did they also make or
suggest changes to the status report?
In defending Kumar, the Congress and the
UPA, particularly Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, leave themselves open
to charges of breaching institutional
integrity. How can something that is
improper be the correct thing to do? The
government's and the law minister's
assertion that only the "draft" status
report, and not the final report, was
shown is a ridiculous explanation. In light
of this logic, one only hopes the
government isn't sharing draft policy
guidelines, particularly those affecting our
sovereign functions, with those with access
to the corridors of power or deep pockets.
Also, let's not forget that among the offices
that are accused of wrongdoing in the coal
blocks allocation scam are the PMO —
Manmohan Singh was also coal minister
for over three years — and the coal
ministry. Why then did the CBI agree to
share the status report with senior
functionaries of these two offices?
In 1997, a bench of the then CJI, the late
J.S. Verma, listed about two dozen
guidelines, which, had they been
implemented properly, would have
ensured independence and autonomy of
the investigating agency. Sixteen years
later, successive governments have
managed to circumvent the guidelines,
issued as part of the famous judgment in
the Jain hawala case, and continue to treat
the CBI as just another wing of the
government.
Kumar's protests that he had not
committed any wrong, since the "law
ministry is the statutory mandated legal
advisor of CBI/ department of personnel
and the law minister is not the political
executive in terms of administrative
control of CBI" is just another example of
how the UPA treats a supposedly
independent agency like the CBI.
Justice Verma's judgment had intended to
bring the CBI out of government control
by giving the CVC power of
superintendence over the investigating
agency. However, sometime back, Justice
Verma talked of the need to make it
mandatory for the CBI to report only to
courts as far as investigations were
concerned. He was only reinforcing the
general feeling that the CBI was the
handmaiden of the government.
A law minister whose behaviour has left
the government open to charges of
manipulating the CBI, and a government
that still swears by such a law minister,
provide an opportunity for the apex court
to finally do what Justice Verma wanted to
achieve through the Jain hawala judgment:
make the CBI truly independent and
autonomous. So that future CBI directors
don't go running to their political masters
whenever they so desire.
maneesh.chhibber@expressindia.com
--
Saurav Datta
Twitter: SauravDatta29
Sent from Samsung Mobile
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LST-LAW SCHOOL TUTORIALS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clat-11+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment