The UPA Government has taken an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and is duty-bound to carry out the court’s orders. However, it has been consistently dodging directives on giving freedom to CBI
An affidavit filed on May 6 by the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mr Ranjit Sinha, in response to a directive from the Supreme Court, said that Mr Ashwani Kumar, the then Union Minister for law and Justice, along with officials of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Coal Ministry as well as Attorney General GE Vahanvati, had suggested changes in the status report filed on the coal scam.
The CBI is currently probing alleged irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks which reportedly cost the national exchequer a staggering Rs1.86 lakh crore, according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The very fact that the country’s apex investigating agency had shared the report with the law Minister and other top Government functionaries has provoked a furious response from the Opposition.
In his affidavit, Mr Sinha says that on March 6, “learned Attorney General glanced through portions of two status reports. He made certain observations which were explained to him. He also suggested certain minor changes in one of the reports.”
In this, Mr Sinha contradicts Mr Vahanvati’s statement before the Supreme Court on April 30 in which the Attorney General said: “Since a lot of things have been said and a letter has been leaked yesterday which refers to me, I am pained. I never had the copy of the status report. I did not have the copy even today and I have never asked for any status report.”
The Attorney General’s statement was in response to a four-page letter written to him by former Additional Solicitor General Haren Rawal, who accused Mr Vahanvati of making him a scapegoat in the entire matter. But while the latter has denied having done anything of the sort, Mr Rawal’s allegations were supported by Mr Sinha. In his affidavit, the CBI Director also admitted that certain changes were made on the suggestions of Mr Vahanvati, Mr Rawal and officials of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Coal Ministry during the course of three meetings held on March 6 — two days before the report was submitted to the apex court. He also said that the changes made “neither altered the central theme of the report, nor shifted the focus of inquiries or investigations in any manner” and that “no names of suspects or accused were removed... no accused or suspects were let off in the process” and there was “no deletion of any evidence” against anyone.
However, the Supreme Court, with regard to the affidavit filed by Mr Sinha, observed that ‘significant’ changes were made in the ‘final’ status report on the coal blocks allocation case, at the behest of the then Union law Minister. “The heart of the report was changed on suggestions of Government officials”, the Supreme Court noted. It also expressed strong displeasure over the Government’s interference in the CBI investigation and said that the investigating agency was like a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”.
Asking the Government to free the CBI from its clutches, the apex court said that, if the agency is not made independent, it will step in. “The job of the CBI is not to interact with Government officials but to interrogate to find the truth”, the Supreme Court said while adding that the agency must also learn how to stand up to Government pressure.
Now, let us examine the changes that were reportedly made in the draft report. The first alteration was in relation to a failure by the screening committee to prepare certain documents. “Tentative findings about non-preparation of broadsheet or chart by the screening committee, to the best of my recollection, were deleted by the law Minister”, Mr Sinha said in his affidavit. Further, he said, “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.”
Expressing concern that no substantial progress has been made in the probe into the allocation of coal blocks after registration of the case more than a year ago, the Supreme Court brought back an IPS officer who had earlier headed the probe but was transferred out. The court also made clear that the 33-member investigative team should not be disturbed. It asked the Centre to ensure that the DIG-level officer, Mr Ravi Kant Mishra, is repatriated to the agency.
The Supreme Court also asked the Centre why it hadn’t been informed about the change. “Such a move creates needless suspicion. We think we have to restore him back to the position. We want him to be part of the investigation”, the court said.
A 1998-batch IPS officer of the Odisha cadre, Mr Mishra was one of the four DIGs that were heading the probe. Mr Mishra was shifted to the Intelligence Bureau following his three-year deputation with the CBI. A CBI counsel told the court that Mr Mishra had left the probe agency of his own volition, as he wanted to join the IB for better career prospects. He also added that Mr Mishra had earlier sought a transfer, which was stalled at the CBI Director’s behest for six months. But after that he was sent to the IB according to his wishes. But the Bench wasn’t convinced, and indicated it would much rather have him back at the helm of the crucial investigation.
The Supreme Court’s observations have given a new charter of independence to the CBI which needs to be displayed in golden letters in every office for future generations. The real problem, however, will arise later on, as no political party would like to lose control of the CBI, or even the police (which is part of the Government) for that matter.
The Ministers have taken an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and so they are duty-bound to carry out the orders of the court. However, the Government has consistently been dodging the Supreme Court’s orders issued with regard to the CBI on September 22, 2006.
Not only should the CBI be given constitutional status but it must also have its own budget. The plethora of sanctions and permissions needed to prosecute the corrupt need to be removed. But the Government is only moving one step forward and two steps backward. For instance, the Union Cabinet passed a resolution on May 1 that shields retired bureaucrats. This in effect will only serve to protect corrupt regime loyalists.
India is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and graft prevails at every level. To contain corruption, we need to strike hard at the root of it. The Government must exhibit firmness of purpose, as it is one of the best instruments for success.