The Supreme Court asked the Centre on Wednesday if CBI was justified to seek sanction for investigation from the Government which had already divested supervision of investigation of corruption cases to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The Bench headed by Justice RM lodha granted Centre a week’s time to furnish its response on this aspect. Along with it, the court wished to know if in court-monitored investigations, such sanction was at all necessary.
Under Section 6A of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, the CBI was required to obtain sanction for investigation and later, another sanction from the Centre or State to prosecute a public servant after filing charge sheet against the officer.
The court questioned the need of such sanction after the Vineet Narain decision in 1997 which made it abundantly clear that Centre could not interfere with the functions of CBI. In an affidavit filed by the Centre lately on the steps taken by the Government to make CBI independent and non-partisan, the Centre admitted that the supervision of corruption cases vested with CVC. However, the Centre argued that in all other cases probed by CBI, it would monitor the probe.
In addition, the court sought the Centre’s view on fixing a time-limit for grant of sanction, preferably three months. In the event such sanction was not forthcoming, the Bench mulled of a deemed sanction. With the Government also keen on making the office of Directorate of Prosecution within CBI more effective, the court suggested making it an independent post. Once the response is received from the Centre, the court may pass some interim steps to insulate the CBI without waiting for years for the amendments to take place.
The court even sought response of the CBI by next date on the amendments proposed by the Centre to make CBI independent. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sidharth luthra who was appearing for CBI, withdrew his appearance after the Bench reminded him of a possible conflict of interest being a Government law officer.