01 December 2014
The CBI still has a certain amount of credibility and the people do expect it to be fair and impartial. Ranjit Sinha’s successor should bear in mind the actions that have seriously harmed the probe agency's image
In a unique first-time move, on November 20, the Supreme Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation Director Ranjit Sinha to keep away from the investigation into the 2G Spectrum scam. This is because prima facie the court has found credible the charges against him that he had attempted to help the accused in the case and delay prosecution in the Aircel-Maxis case involving former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran.
In a clear and unambiguous order, the Supreme Court said: “We direct the CBI Director not to interfere in the 2G scam investigation or prosecution. He will recuse himself from the case. The investigation team, constituted in the CBI to probe this case, will take over the handling of the case in place of present Director CBI who has only a few working days left for his retirement from the post… To protect the fair name of the CBI and to protect the reputation of the CBI Director, we are not giving elaborate reasons. Suffice it for us to observe that information furnished by the applicant (Centre for Public Interest Litigation) appears to be prima facie credible. So, it needs to be accepted. We reiterate that we are not giving elaborate reasons as the CBI has its own reputation and we don’t intend to tarnish it”.
Earlier, the apex court had appointed a Special Public Prosecutor who examined the evidence on Mr Sinha’s alleged misdeeds in the 2G case. He held that the evidence provided by the petitioner was credible. He slammed the CBI Director’s conduct and said that he could face criminal contempt for attempting to obstruct the administration of justice in the 2G case.
The Bench emphatically rejected Mr Sinha’s defence that he had done no wrong. “He is the head of the CBI. He should have the independence to take administrative decisions. All decisions taken were within the four corners of law and CBI manual”, argued the Director’s counsel.
Reportedly, two officials from a leading business house had visited Mr Sinha’s house several times, individually and collectively, every week between May 2013 and August of this year. The cars they used were registered to that firm. The frequency of their visits increased this year when Mr Sinha moved a proposal to re-investigate the case against two companies on the grounds that some new facts have come to light.
Rajya Sabha member KTS Tulsi, who was also a top law officer in the previous Government, said: “This is gross misconduct on part of the topmost official. There can’t be any justification for meetings between those against whom the agency had been conducting investigation and the CBI Director at his residence.”
Had it been some other official from any other department, search and seizure operations would have been conducted by now to find out if the person has any disproportionate property, and prosecuted. Mr Tulsi added: “Earlier, people at top places had been clamouring for independence of the CBI Director, so that he could function with freedom and without pressure from any quarters. But independence without accountability leads to this kind of situation.”
Mr Tulsi also said that, “If the logbook entries are correct, which I’m not aware of, then whatever has happened is highly condemnable. One can easily draw conclusion that the investigation has been compromised. If the top boss is meeting those on whom the probe is on, it would definitely demoralise the subordinate IO (investigating officer)”.
Questions have also been raised on the appropriateness of the Director meeting ‘visitors’ at his official residence. “The CBI Director isn’t operating from a district camp office, where it’s usually an office-cum-residence arrangement, unlike Delhi where the Director operates from the CBI headquarters. So, why are people meeting him at his residence?” asked another official.
First, an effort was made to deny the entries in the log book and later on it was admitted that only few of the entries were correct. Whatever the truth, only the Supreme Court knows it, as it has been given all the documents. But one thing is certain: The media has come of age and it is impossible for any Government agency to make it toe its line.
Earlier in November, a court had observed the CBI had made a “mockery” of the closure report in the Hindalco case, and that the CBI should “keep its house in order.”
Notably, in the of 2G matter, the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI were at odds over whether to allow two promoters of a tainted company, accused in the case, to travel abroad. In the normal course, the CBI should have been opposing such travels, but here it had no objection. The ED opposed the move in September 2013.
In what can weaken the CBI’s case against DMK leader Kanimozhi in the 2G case, a prosecution witness told a special CBI court that the she was not actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of Kalaignar TV, which had allegedly received Rs200 crore from a Swan Telecom partner.
Kalaignar TV director P Amirtham, when called as a CBI witness, told the court that Ms Kanimozhi was initially “very reluctant” to join the channel but agreed under pressure of her father and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi. His statement assumes significance as the CBI had claimed that during the probe that Mr Amirtham had said that Ms Kanimozhi took a keen interest in the day-to-day affairs of the channel. In his statement to the CBI on April 29, 2011, Amirtham had said: “She resigned on June 20, 2007 from the board as director... Nevertheless, she used to take keen interest in day-to-day affairs of the company.” There is no law against any witness telling lies or turning hostile. It was open to the CBI to get such witnesses’ statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC.
The CBI still has a certain amount of credibility in the country and the people do expect it to be fair and impartial. Ups and downs are a part of life and it has been rightly said that, “One swallow does not a summer make”. But the fact remains that every action or perceived inaction shapes credibility. It is true that separating the grain from the chaff is difficult, but the efforts should continue.
It is the Director of the CBI who must set the tone. Mr Sinha’s successor should bear this in mind: The mediocre Director tells; the good Director explains; the superior Director demonstrates; the great Director inspires.
No comments:
Post a Comment