CBI’s doublespeak in the Coalgate probe came to the fore in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Dealing with the agency’s request to change the composition of the probe team, the court discovered that the officer who supervised the crucial part of investigations into allocations made during 2006-09 did not figure in the agency’s scheme of things now.
DIG Ravi Kant, who had been spearheading the investigations into the heart of the coal block allocation scam (allocations made during 2006-09) right from the start, had apparently been removed from cases relating to about 85 allocations made by the Screening Committee between 2006 and 2009. In his place, another officer DIG Amit Kumar was brought in to monitor the probe.
Obtaining an undertaking from the CBI that all cases pertaining to the 2006-2009 period will be restored to Ravi Kant, the Bench snubbed the agency for removing the officer from the probe he originally headed.
It directed Amit Kumar to be handed over the probe into the other coal block allocations made between 1993 and 2005, amounting to some 45 blocks. The third DIG in the team was directed to examine the remaining preliminary enquiry pertaining to allocations made through the “Government Dispensation” route. About 100 blocks were allocated under this category, with 63 blocks forming the bulk being dispensed during 2006-09.
The CBI Director was directed to issue a circular to this effect within three days.
The Bench headed by Justice RM lodha was also piqued over the agency moving a separate application to be allowed to share investigation details with Government to obtain investigation sanction under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946.
Ironically, the same application disclosed how the CBI, which was prohibited by the SC on May 8 to share probe details with anybody, obtained sanction to investigate the Coal Secretary after voluntarily sharing investigation details with the Centre.
“Your application says give from one hand and take from another,” said the Bench, also comprising Justices Madan B lokur and Kurien Joseph, warning the agency, “Don’t take shelter under Section 6A.”
The court refused to entertain the application but left it open to the agency to approach the court at any stage when investigation details had to be shared with the Government or counsels for CBI or even the Director of Prosecution. This became necessary as CBI counsel senior advocate Amarendra Sharan pointed out that charge sheet in three cases was ripe to be filed in court.
With the matter relating to CBI autonomy pending consideration with the court, the Bench posted the matter for hearing on August 6. On that day, it sought the views of the Attorney General on the question whether sanction under Section 6A would be required in court-monitored probe such as the coal scam. It also sought the Centre’s response to the CBI’s suggestions seeking more administrative and financial powers to become autonomous.