The Supreme Court on Wednesday received a report from a panel constituted by it to probe into the secret meetings that former CBI Director Ranjit Sinha held with the accused in the coal scam and the impact it had on the investigations pending under him.
The 205-page report divided into six chapters contained the final findings of the panel headed by former CBI Special Director Ml Sharma into the role of Sinha in dealing with the regular cases (RC) investigated by him. The contents of the report were kept secret by the court as the report was in a sealed cover. Despite demands to supply a copy of the report by Sinha’s lawyer and senior advocate Vikas Singh and the advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner NGO Common Cause, the bench refused to make the report public.
The bench of Justices Madan B lokur, Kurian Joseph, and AK Sikri decided to seek assistance of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, supplying him a copy of the report, and asking him to suggest by May 4 whether the report should be made public in full or in part. “To what extent the report should be disclosed or only findings be disclosed has to be worked out,” the bench told A-G.
Along with the report the Sharma panel submitted an application to apex court demanding access to preliminary enquiries (PEs) probed by Sinha. Rohatgi who agreed to assist the Court with regard to disclosure of report, turned down the other request to give access to PEs. He said, “As far as PEs are concerned, it is given by CBI to Central Vigilance Commission as per law. We can’t have another person examining PEs.”
The bench clarified that the Sharma panel will not examine on merits but for the purpose of establishing whether the visits by the accused had any impact on CBI investigation. Senior advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Sinha objected to the prayer made by the enquiry panel. “It will lead to serious consequences on trial. At best this report could be handed over to the trial judge and a copy be given to me to defend charges, if any.”
The Court asked A-G to go through the report and advice why the panel required access to PEs and whether it was justified based on the findings of the report.