Agency has sold its soul, say legal luminaries
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) acted under the Centre's
directive in seeking to bail out Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh
Yadav in the disproportionate assets case. The CBI's admission in the
Supreme Court on Tuesday sent shock waves among legal luminaries, with
senior advocate KTS Tulsi even saying the CBI "has sold its soul".
Making the startling disclosure, Additional Solicitor General (ASG)
Mohan Parasaran said the CBI's plea to withdraw an earlier letter for
Mulayam's prosecution was based on the Union Law Ministry's
instructions.
The shocking revelation is another low in the disgraceful history of an
organisation that has invited regular criticism for being a "puppet" of
the Central Government. The CBI's role in Bofors accused Ottavio
Quattorocchi' s escape and de-freezing of his London accounts, its
refusal to challenge RJD chief Lalu Prasad's acquittal in the fodder
scam and its flip-flop on corruption cases against BSP supremo Mayawati
have earned it a great deal of notoriety.
On October 26, 2007, the agency had filed an application seeking
permission to table its investigation report before the Supreme Court.
The CBI had then held that there was prima facie evidence to nail
Mulayam Singh and his kin in corruption cases. Those were the days when
the SP and the Congress were on opposite sides of the political divide.
But after the SP came closer to the UPA and bailed out the Manmohan
Singh Government by voting in favour of the confidence motion, the CBI
took an about-turn. On December 6, 2008, the agency filed an application
to withdraw its earlier request to table charges against Mulayam, which
could have led to his prosecution. The agency said it had received
representation from Mulayam to reconsider the evidences and cited this
reason for the flip-flop.
"We proceeded to take the view of the Law Minister whether to take
action on Mulayam's representations. We received opinion from the Law
Ministry to withdraw the October 2007 application and file a fresh
application dated November 26, 2008, which was filed in the court on
December 6. On that opinion, we filed the fresh application, " the ASG
added.
The CBI's submission stunned the court, forcing the Bench of Justices
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph to remark, "So you were acting at the
behest of the Law Ministry. You were not acting independently. What you
just now said is something unusual."
Digging deeper, the Bench asked, "Is this the only case where the CBI
has followed the practice of referring for opinion to the Law Ministry
or has it been resorting to this in the past also?" The ASG replied, "In
the past also, we have referred (cases) for their opinion. I have stated
the facts as they are."
The Bench sought to know what stopped the agency from approaching the
court on considering the representations. It was on March 1, 2007, that
the apex court had directed the CBI to investigate into the
disproportionate assets of Mulayam, his two sons Akhilesh and Prateek,
and daughter-in- law Dimple on a PIL filed by one Vishwanath Chaturvedi.
"Why did you go to the Central Government? Why didn't you approach us?"
the Bench asked.
It also asked, "When the investigation was completed and you received
additional material, does anything stand in way of your examining it?"
The ASG replied in the negative. This gave the court sufficient proof to
hold the CBI at fault.
Finding itself in a rather sticky position, Solicitor General GE
Vahanvati chose to remain neutral. Appearing for the Centre, he
clarified, "We don't want to take any decision in this matter. Let the
CBI consider the representation and submit report to the court."
The CBI's admission, however, gave sufficient ammunition to petitioner
Chaturvedi and Mulayam and his kin to take potshots at the agency's foul
play.
Leading the attack was senior advocate Harish Salve, who hinted at the
CBI report being replete with errors and falsehoods, such as Rs 1 lakh
being shown as Rs 10 lakh and a non-existing hotel valued as an asset of
Mulayam. Salve said, "I said it then and I say it now that the CBI is
not to be trusted with investigations in this case."
Referring to the CBI report available in the public domain, a fact that
attracted shock and anguish from the court, Salve blamed the CBI for
"select leak" of the report designed to tarnish his client's image.
Offering to get the Augean stables cleaned for once, Salve offered to be
probed by a judicial authority in place of the CBI.
Amused by this suggestion, the Bench remarked, "It was Hercules who
cleaned the Augean stables. Where do you get a Hercules?" The concern of
the Bench resonated in the arguments of senior advocate KTS Tulsi, who
appeared for Chaturvedi. Referring to a catena of Supreme Court
decisions and the CBI manual, Tulsi suggested that the apex court since
the 1991 Veeraswamy case was concerned to preserve the CBI's
independence.
Quoting the CBI manual, which requires the preliminary inquiry report in
court-directed cases to be deposited with the court, Tulsi added, "It is
not that the CBI does not know the law. It only shows that CBI has sold
its soul."
The counsels appearing for Mulayam's kin demanded that the CBI's
application ought to be decided along with the review petitions being
heard by the court filed by them. Salve raised the plank that his client
was a victim of political vendetta at the behest of the petitioner, who
was a "professed" Congress activist. In this regard, he referred to a
taped conversation of Chaturvedi where he bared out his vested interest
by showing the judiciary in poor light. On his part, Chaturvedi's
counsel requested the court to provide security to his client in the
wake of the threats received.
The court allowed Salve to file additional material in the form of CDs
and related affidavit. Posting the matter for March 31, it left open the
question whether the hearing pertaining to the taped conversation should
be held in camera. The Bench directed the UP Government to ensure
security to Chaturvedi as requested by him.
No comments:
Post a Comment