Perturbed? with the CBI changing the ?heart? of the status report on the coal blocks allocation case at the instance of its ?masters?, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the CBI director to ensure that Union law minister Ashwani Kumar and other Cabinet ministers do not have access to such reports in future.
?Henceforth, the CBI director shall ensure that in the matter of inquiry and investigation of allocation of coal blocks, no access of any nature is provided to any persons or authority, including the minister of concerned department, law minister or any other central minister, law officers, CBI counsels, director of prosecution or any other person outside the investigation team,? directed a bench led by justice RM Lodha.
It added that the CBI team investigating the matter will not change without the permission of the court and that the agency will approach the bench if it required assistance of any outsider. It also directed for repatriation of CBI DIG Ravikant Mishra, who was initially a part of the investigating team but had later moved to the Intelligence Bureau.
In order to insulate the CBI from ?external influences? and intrusion, the court also asked the Centre to consider bringing in an ?effective? law, preferably by July 10, the next date of hearing.
Agreeing to examine if the law minister could ask the CBI to show him the draft status report and suggest changes when the matter was being monitored by the court, the bench said it acknowledged that the Union minister was answerable to
Parliament.
However, the court said, he could only seek the status of the investigation ?but not intervene?.
?We know CBI is a force created by the government and you have full control over it but investigation is a component which under the law has been left independent. While making CBI answerable, it has been made clear that investigation is not to be touched by the government,? remarked the bench, adding there could be no justification for the CBI to allow ?outsiders? to peruse the report and suggest changes.
In his affidavit, CBI director Ranjit Sinha had admitted to the SC that as many as four ?significant? changes were made in the ?final? status report at the instance of the law minister and officials of the 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.
?The latest events show that CBI has become a caged parrot, speaking in its masters’ voice. It is a sordid saga that it is one parrot with many masters. It is very strange that instead of interrogating them, it was busy interacting with the officers of the coal ministry and the prime minister’s office. CBI should know how to stand up to all pulls and pressures. Yours was an act of indiscretion,? said the bench.
The court also pulled up joint secretaries of the PMO and coal ministry for meeting CBI officials and suggesting changes in the draft report. At their instance, CBI had deleted the tentative finding about non-existence of a system regarding allocation of specific weightage/ points. Joint secretaries of PMO and coal ministry Shatrughna Singh and AK Bhalla had met the CBI officials and suggested two changes. One related to deletion of the sentence and another on incorporating a statement on ?non-existence of approved guidelines for allocation of coal blocks.?
Terming the original sentence as the ?heart of the report,? the bench slammed the officials, saying: ?They have no business to interact with CBI. How can a joint secretary go through the probe report? There are people from these departments who are being probed. It is a very complicated situation where outsiders, whose roles are under the scanner, are allowed access to the reports and CBI calls it mere interaction,? noted the court.
It pointed that the changes made at the behest of PMO and coal ministry officials were admittedly ?significant? and it had the potential of changing the entire course of investigation into the ?most crucial? probe relating to the preliminary enquiry-2, which related to allocation of coal blocks between 2006-09, during UPA-I regime. Notably, the two changes made after intervention of the law minister also related to the same PE.
?Everybody seems to be keen only perusing and suggesting changes in PE-2. There could not be direct evidence in such matters and a large part would be based on inferences. But you (CBI) accept changes suggested to you. It was an absolute mistake on your part and you should now admit your fault instead of justifying it that you had reasons to accept these changes,? said the bench.
At this, the CBI counsel admitted there were ?aberrations? on the part of the CBI in showing the reports to the minister and others and that they were willing to assure the bench that they would not do so in the future and undertake the probe in all seriousness and fairness.
Attorney general G E Vahanvati tried to defend himself by claiming that he had not asked the CBI officers to come to his house to show him the status report.
?My meeting took place only on the suggestion of law minister,? he said, admitting that he had only ?glanced through? the report.
