SC rips into CBI for bowing to bosses, seeks details of interference

Lashing out at the ?intrusion? into the coal block allocation probe by ?political bosses?, the Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the CBI on what entitled Union law minister Ashwani Kumar to go through the investigation report before its submission in the court and how the changes made after his intervention impacted the report.

A bench led by justice RM Lodha asked CBI director Ranjit Sinha to file a personal affidavit, explaining the reasons for not admitting it on the last hearing that the draft of the status report had been shared with the minister and joint secretaries, one each from the Prime Minister?s Office and the coal ministry.

The CBI had in the court denied sharing the first status report with ?political executives?.

However, Sinha in his subsequent affidavit on April 26, admitted that report was shared with the law ministers and joint secretaries, ?as desired by them?.

Noting that the latest status report by the CBI did not highlight the changes made after the ?extraneous interference?, the court asked Sinha to answer why such details had not been included and sought information by Monday as to ?at whose instance? changes were made in the draft report and the extent of such changes.

Castigating the CBI for ?total erosion of its trust,? it also demanded to know the names of all persons with whom the report had been shared, besides disclosing the names of the two joint secretaries. The query was formed after attorney general GE Vahanvati denied he had seen the draft report till date whereas advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners in the matter, cited media reports on presence of others, including AG, in the meeting called upon by the law minister. The Indian Express had first reported that the Union minister had vetted the draft report.

While framing six questions for the CBI director, the bench said it was ?very disturbed? and asked for an explanation on ?the procedure to be followed by the CBI in sharing the status reports where continuous investigation reports were being called for by the court.?

?Why was there not a disclosure of this vital aspect? When the matter came up for hearing on March 12, an emphatic assertion was made by the CBI through an additional solicitor general (HP Raval) that nothing in the report was shared with political executives. The court had been kept in dark about what happened before the first status report was submitted,? it said while fixing the matter for Wednesday next.

Due to the ?lurking doubts,? the court said, it had sought an affidavit from Sinha on whether the status reports were being shared. It said that the entire foundation of the CBI?s probe was ?shaking? in the wake of recent developments and that the agency was not supposed to agree on everything that its ?masters and political bosses? asked for.

?If we find that the investigation was influenced by someone who had no business or authority to do that, the necessary inference is that the entire investigation is a farce and a new course will have to be adopted. Let us see what the draft report was and how was it changed. If it was changed to shield or protect some persons, the investigation will be rendered meaningless and the reaction of the court will be very different,? it cautioned.

The bench, underlining that the ?prime? task before it was now to ensure that the CBI was insulated and liberated from such ?extraneous influences and interferences,? asked if such an intrusion into investigation was permissible under any statute, rules or guidelines of the CBI even after Vineet Narain?s judgment in 1997 wherein SC made it clear that executive could not interfere with the course of investigation.

?You move with the crutches of the government. This intrusion has shaken the entire investigation. If we know there are extraneous considerations and intrusions from all corners, how can the investigation progress fairly? We want to know if this suppression (on sharing the report) was deliberate. Inertia with the CBI will have to be removed,? said the bench, asking the CBI to also adduce the details of its officers concerned with the probe into the case.

The bench made it clear to the CBI that any further statements by the agency ?must be candid and truthful? and that the court will pass necessary orders after the submissions by the agency.