Former Minister of State for Coal Santosh Bagrodia bared all truths against former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the coal scam case suggesting that if Singh’s trial could be stayed by the Supreme Court, he had a better case for stay as he was simply following the instructions received from the Prime Minister Office.
Singh, who was criticised by the Opposition for his role in the coal scam, came under attack from his former colleague as Bagrodia’s counsels tried best to convince the Bench hearing the coal scam cases to stay the trial against their client. Finally, as arguments remained inconclusive, the Court allowed the 75-year old exemption from personal appearance before the trial court and posted the matter for further hearing on September 29.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal who appeared for Bagrodia did not mince words to express his anguish over being treated unfairly in the case as compared to Singh who obtained a stay on trial by another Bench of the Supreme Court despite his charges being grave.
The Bench of Justices Madan B lokur, Kurian Joseph and AK Sikri indicated that before taking a final view on the petition filed by Bagrodia, it will consult the special public prosecutor RS Cheema, although no formal order was passed in this regard.
Singh, in his petition before the Apex Court, questioned the validity of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, one of the charges alleged against him and argued how such a vague provision could be slapped against him which reads criminal misconduct against a public servant who “while holding office obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.” The SC had admitted this appeal filed by Singh and ordered stay on his trial.
Venugopal said that the Court will be accused of showing “injustice” if it did not show the same treatment to his client too. Singh is directly accused of “commission” compared to Bagrodia, who is accused only of “omission”, Venugopal said, adding that Manmohan Singh was the “Minister-in-charge” while his client enjoyed no statutory power to take decisions qua allocation.
Although CBI special counsel Amarendra Saran accused Bagrodia of arranging a meeting with the accused and giving a report certifying the coal block allottee’s credentials, Venugopal said that Singh had regular conversations and meetings with Kumarmangalam Birla and repeated telephonic reminders and letters were sent to him from the then PM to expedite the allocation process. “I stand on similar footing and have a stronger case for stay of trial,” Venugopal said, pointing out that Singh was charged of overruling recommendation of Screening Committee and ignoring bureaucratic advice while Bagrodia followed bureaucratic advice received from the officials in the Ministry as per the Rules of Business.