Joginder Singh
An affidavit filed, on 6th May, 2013, by the Director CBI in response to a directive from the Apex court, said that changes were made by Law Minister and officials from the PMO and the Coal Ministry, and that the Government’s top law officer Attorney General had also suggested alterations, in the Status report filed in Coal cases.
The CBI is probing alleged irregularities in coal block allocation about which CAG had noted that it benefited companies of a staggering amount of Rs 1.86 lakh crore. The very act of showing its draft report to the Law Minister and showing it to the Joint Secretaries to the Government officials had provoked a furious response from the Opposition. Giving the sequence of events which transpired on March 6, Director, CBl’s affidavit states: “Learned attorney general glanced through portions of two status report. He made certain observations which were explained to him. He also suggested certain minor changes in one of the reports.”
This directly contradicts Attorney General’s statement before the Supreme Court on April 30, 2013. “Since a lot of things have been said and a letter has been leaked yesterday which refers to me, I am pained. I never had the copy of the status report. I do not have the copy even today and I have never asked for any status report, Attorney General said.
The Attorney General’s statement had come in response to a four-page letter written to him by former Additional Solicitor General Harin Rawal, which he had accused the Attorney General of making him a scapegoat in the entire matter, who wrote; “You (Vahanvati) will kindly recall that on 6th March, while I was in court, I received a message from your end, asking me to see the law minister at 12.30 with the status report … which was perused by him as well as by you”. Rawal had further stated that Vahanvati had seen several other drafts of CBI status reports at his official residence, though the later has denied any such development.
The Supreme court perused the Affidavit of the Director CBI, who in the latest affidavit had admitted to the Supreme Court that “significant” changes were made in the “final” status report on the coal blocks allocation case at the instance of Union Law Minister. The Director CBI admitted that certain changes were made on the suggestions of Attorney General, the then Additional Solicitor General and officials of /he prime minister’s office and / coal ministry during the course of three meetings held on March 6 – two days before the report was submitted to the apex court. He also that changes made have “neither altered the central theme of the report, nor shifted the focus of inquiries or investigations in any manner.” The affidavit stated that “no names of suspects or accused were removed … No accused or suspects were let off in the process” and there was “no deletion of any evidence” against anyone.
Expressing strong displeasure at Govt’s interference “The heart of the report was changed on suggestions of Government officials,” the Apex Court said in an apparent reference, over the sharing of the draft status report with political executive and joint secretaries in the Coal Ministry and the PMO.
Raising questions on the independence of CBI, the apex court called it a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”. “It’s a sordid saga that there are many masters and one parrot.” Asking the Govt to make CBI impartial, the apex court said it needs to be ensured that the CBI functions free of all external pressures. If the CBI is not made independent, we will step in, the SC observed.
“Job of CBI is not to interact with Government officials but to interrogate to find the truth,” the SC said. The judges remarked that the CBI must know how to stand up against all pulls and pressures by Government and its officials.
Commenting on Law Minister, Apex Court said that a minister can ask for a report but can’t interfere with the CBI probe. It also questioned how the CBI could have regular interactions with the ministry officials. Slamming the action of joint secretaries who saw the probe report, the SC said, What business do the two joint secretaries have in visiting the CBI office?
Defending his role, Attorney General said, “My meeting with CBI officials took place only on suggestions of the Law Minister.”
CBI Director admitted to the Supreme Court that “significant” changes were made in the “final” status report on the coal blocks allocation case at the instance of Union Law Minister The first change related to a failure by the screening committee to prepare certain documents, “tentative findings about non-preparation of broadsheet or chart by the screening committee, to the best of my recollection, was deleted by the Law Minister,” Further, he said, “deletion of a sentence about the scope of inquiry with respect to illegalities of allocation while the amendment to law was in process, was done by Law Minister.”
Expressing concern that no substantial progress has been made in the probe into the allocation of coal blocks after registration of the case more than a year ago, the Supreme Court brought back an IPS officer who had earlier headed the probe but was transferred out.
The court made it clear that the 33-member investigative team should not be disturbed. The Bench asked the Centre to ensure that the DIG- level officer, Ravikant Mishra, is repatriated to the agency and added that “Why didn’t you tell us? Such a move creates needless suspicion. We think we have to restore him back to the position. We want him to be part of the investigation.
A 1998-batch IPS officer of the Odisha cadre, Mishra was one of the four DIGs heading the probe. Mishra was shifted to the Intelligence Bureau after his three-year CBI deputation. CBI counsel, told the court that Mishra had left the CBI of his own volition as he wanted to join the IB for better career prospects. And had sought a transfer, which was stalled at the CBI director’s instance for six months. But after that he was sent to the IB according to his wishes. But the bench wasn’t convinced, and indicated it would much rather have him back at the helm of the probe.”
The Supreme Court observations have given a new charter of Independence to the CBI and need to be displayed in golden letters in every office, for future generation. The real problem would arise later on, as no political party would like to loose control of the CBI or Police, and Change the Police Laws, which at present make Police, a wing of the Government.
The Government Ministers have taken an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and so they are duty bound to carry out the orders of the Constitutional Court, which all State as well as Central Governments, irrespective of the party in power have been dodging to carry out the Supreme Court Orders of 22nd September, 2006, on one pretext brothers.
Not only CBl should be given the Constitutional Status, but also given its own budget. Plethora of sanctions and permissions to prosecute the corrupt and dishonest need to be removed. The Union Cabinet has passed a resolution on 1st May, 2013 to provide a shield of protection to retired bureaucrats. In between, one needs to read, that it is only for those, who had something to do with the scams or carrying out the illegal orders. We are the 87th Most Corrupt country in the world, with an integrity score of 34 marks out of 100. You do not need Solomon’s Intelligence to how that corruption is prevailing at every level and we need to strike hard at it, Firmness of purpose should be shown by the Government as Firmness of purpose is one of the most necessary sinews of character, and one of the best instruments of success.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel