In the backdrop of the disproportionate assets case under probe against Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh, the Supreme Court on Monday prepared the ground for an interesting political battle as it issued notice on a petition by Central Bureau of Investigation seeking transfer of the case pending before the Himachal High Court to Delhi.
The political battle lines were evident as the court proceedings witnessed a battery of senior lawyers of the likes of Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rajeev Dhavan and Vivek Tankha representing Singh, his wife Pratibha, and the State Government.
Right from the word go, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for CBI blazed all guns against the formidable opposition giving information on how the judge who issued an order on October 1, 2015 restraining the probe agency from interrogating or filing chargesheet in the case, had withdrawn from cases relating to Singh on two occasions in the past, citing his close affiliation with the present Chief Minister.
The judge in question (Justice Rajiv Sharma) had refused to take part in proceedings brought against Singh on two occasions based on the reasoning that as a lawyer he had appeared for Singh in several matters. Hoping similar response when the DA case was brought before him, the CBI found it difficult to accept how the same judge decided to monitor the case investigation and passed an order severely restricting CBI from proceeding against Singh in any manner.
Finding its hands tied, CBI, through A-G Rohatgi, sought suspension of the October 1 order. Singh is accused of amassing disproportionate income of over Rs6 crore in his Income Tax returns filed during 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 when he was Union Steel Minister.
Rohatgi said the case could be heard at the Delhi High Court where monitoring of investigation into the same case is ongoing. The matter arose for consideration in a PIl filed by NGO Common Cause. On hearing the CBI’s contentions, the Bench of Justices FM Ibrahim Kalifulla and UU lalit remarked, “Some consistency should be followed by judge. If he doesn’t want to hear, don’t hear any matter.”
The observation came handy for the A-G who pressed for stay of HC order. This provoked bitter reaction from the opposite side with Sibal claiming the CBI got facts wrong. The same judge had heard tax matters relating to the CM, Sibal argued. Backing him, Chidambaram said none of the orders produced by CBI indicate that Singh was the judge’s client. Instead it was for other reasons he refused to hear the cases.
Noting the high decibel arguments at both ends, the Bench posted the matter for November 5.