A day after taking over as Additional Director of CBI, Archana Ramasundaram, the IPS officer from Tamil Nadu cadre, was restrained from performing her official functions by the Supreme Court, which found her selection to be prima facie illegal.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice RM lodha, found that the Cabinet decision appointing her as Additional Director in CBI was not done as per the procedure provided in the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act 1946. Under the Act, the Selection Committee is authorised to select a name for all top posts in CBI except that of director. The Committee headed by Chief Vigilance Commissioner did not recommend Archana. The urgency shown by the Government to appoint her also earned the ire of Tamil Nadu Government which suspended her Thursday calling her a “deserter”.
The PIl filed by Vineet Narain highlighted these facts to suggest it was an affront to the independence of CBI and indicated interference of Centre in the proper functioning of the agency, tasked with investigation of high profile corruption cases.
The Bench, also comprising Justices AK Patnaik, KS Radhakrishnan and SS Nijjar said, “We find the petitioner has been able to make out a strong prima facie case. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason for respondent (Archana Ramasundaram) to continue to function as Additional Director for the time being. We accordingly restrain the respondent (Union of India) for allowing her to function as Additional Director till next date.” The court allowed CBI Director to intervene in the matter and sought his response by July 14, the next date of hearing.
The Court pointedly asked Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, “Is it a fact the Selection Committee under the law did not recommend her name.” Parasaran justified his stand thrice failing at each attempt. First he argued the Committee had to recommend a panel of names. The bench found that the word “panel of names” was used only in context of Director’s appointment. He then took a stand that the Committee refused to reconsider its decision. The bench pointed out that the Committee twice recommended one RK Pachnanda while Ramasundaram never figured in the list even once. lastly, Parasaran argued that the Committee decision was not unanimous. But the bench put to him why the Centre did not bring new facts to the Committee’s notice.
The Bench observed, “Once you accept the position that the name was not recommended by Selection Committee then as per provisions of law selection is illegal.” Referring to the process adopted by Centre, Court said, “This is indirect way of imposing your own person…You should have sanction of law from Parliament to override recommendation of Committee.”