CBI director Ranjit Sinha on Monday admitted before 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 Ashwani Kumar.
The CBI chief also admitted that certain changes in the reports were made on suggestions of attorney general GE Vahanvati, then additional solicitor general HP Raval and officials of the Prime Minister?s Office and coal ministry during the course of three meetings held on March 6 ? two days prior to its submission in the court.
Sinha?s affidavit, which will be taken up by the court on Wednesday, demolishes the stand taken by the law minister and AG that they had not suggested any changes in the reports. Raval, who had during the March 12 hearing claimed that the report was not shared with political executives, resigned last week after the admission by Sinha over sharing the reports with law minister and others, ?as desired by them?.
In his nine-page affidavit, Sinha cited two ?significant? changes made in the reports after intervention by the law minister. Notably, both these changes pertained to the investigation into allocation of coal blocks between 2006 and 2009 during the UPA-I regime.
The first change related to a failure by the screening committee in preparing certain documents. Sinha said ?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, ?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?. The affidavit did not reveal the sentence deleted but pointed that the original draft report and the amended one had already been submitted in the court.
Sinha said that on March 6, a meeting was held at the law minister?s office and two preliminary enquiries (PEs) were discussed in the presence of Vahanvati and Raval. The CBI had launched 3 PEs and subsequently registered 9 regular cases (formal FIRs) till March 6.
Later in the day, OP Galhotra, CBI joint director, and Ravikant, CBI DIG, went to AG?s residential office where Vahanvati ?glanced through? the portions of the status reports and ?made certain observations?. The affidavit clarified that AG ?suggested certain minor changes in the status report of PE -2? (relating to allocation during UPA-I) but AG neither asked for, nor was given a copy of ?final? status reports.
In the evening of March 6, at the request of Shatrughna Singh, joint secretary in the PMO, a meeting was held in the chamber of Galhotra at the CBI headquarters. AK Bhalla, joint secretary in the coal ministry was also present and both officials went through the draft status reports. They suggested two changes on March 7.
?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 coal ministry,? said the affidavit.
The final status report by the CBI also incorporated statement on ?non-existence of approved guidelines for allocation of coal blocks? at the instance of these officials as it was ?factually correct.? Later on March 7, Sinha vetted the reports and endorsed them for submission in the court.
The CBI chief submitted that it was difficult at this stage to attribute each change to a particular person with certainty while asserting that the changes made by the law minister, PMO and coal ministry officials were accepted by the CBI since they pertained to its ?tentative? findings and also ?in order to refine the reports.?
Sinha also claimed that sharing of the report and the consequent changes made have ?neither altered the central theme of the report, nor shifted the focus of enquiries or investigations in any manner.?
The affidavit stated that ?no names of suspect or accused were removed from the status reports and also that no accused or suspect were let off in the process? and that there was ?no deletion of any evidence? against anyone. It also claimed that besides the reports of the two PEs, no other report was shared with anyone.
On the question of concealing from the court the facts on sharing the report, the CBI chief said that there was no intention to suppress this and that Raval made the impugned statement not on the instructions of the CBI but ?on his own.?
Responding to the court’s query on the procedure being followed by the CBI with respect to sharing the status reports on the investigation underway, Sinha submitted that there was ?nothing? in the CBI manual to guide the agency and that departmental circulars and government instructions were also ?silent? on this point. He said that no general guidelines could be located.
Sinha also expressed his ?unconditional apology? for his ?inadvertent? errors and assured the court that the investigation was being conducted ?independently.?
