The CBI had recommended the closure of three cases in the coal block allocation scam even though a fit case for trial was made out. The disclosure came on Wednesday when the CVC, monitoring the coal scam probe, informed the Supreme Court that of the 11 cases where difference of opinion between the CBI’s investigating officer and superior officers led to the agency opting for the closure of all the 11 cases, it recommended registration of regular case (RC) in three cases.
In the remaining eight cases, it agreed with the CBI top brass view for the closure of case. Following the Supreme Court order of March 28, the CBI had referred case files in 25 preliminary enquiries (PE) to CVC as differences had cropped up between the investigating officer (IO) and the superior officers of the rank of Joint Director/Special Director and Director CBI.
While the IO recommended filing of chargesheet, the superiors blocked the move finding no evidence to sustain trial. The report of CVC was sent to the court in a sealed cover. Revealing details of the contents, the Bench of Chief Justice RM lodha, Justices Madan B lokur and Kurian Joseph said, “In 11 cases, they (CVC) have given report. They recommend three cases for RC while in eight they agree (with CBI).”
The Bench further indicated, “We will direct the CBI to follow CVC recommendation.” While the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Pradeep Kumar had sought permission from court to withdraw from this exercise, the 11 cases were examined by the two Vigilance Commissioners. So far as investigation of CBI into other PEs, the Bench noted “little progress” with regard to role of State PSUs in the scam.
The report of the CVC buoyed hopes of the petitioner NGO CPIl. Its lawyer Prashant Bhushan pointed out that four closure reports had been filed so far by CBI in cases which are “open and shut” instances of criminal misconduct. He suggested to court that in any case where CBI proposed closure report, the view of CVC must be made mandatory. CBI special counsel Amrendra Saran opposed this move claiming that CVC Act does not permit it to “direct investigation” or suggest what manner a case be disposed. He said that bureaucrats could not be trusted for this task which was “judicial” in nature. According to him, the correctness of closure report should be left to the Magistrate.
The Bench asked CBI as to what was meant by CVC’s power of “superintendence” over investigation of cases by CBI. Since the Court had not appointed any amicus curiae, it found no reason behind CBI objecting to CVC to recommend it on accepting CBI’s closure report. Saran said, “It would amount to outsourcing judicial powers.” But the Bench furiously retorted by saying whether under its constitutional power to monitor cases in public interest, the Supreme Court could be stopped under Criminal Procedure Code to demand to seek view of CVC. Prima facie, the court held, “We do not find any impediment in this suggestion,” Bench said, while posting the matter for orders on Thursday.
Bhushan also raised controversy over a CBI Joint Director OP Galhotra, accusing him of conflict of interest and demanded him to be kept out of coal scam investigation. He was accused of having family ties with Jindal Group Chairman. Saran informed Court that the officer had withdrawn from that particular case. Sources in CBI said that the complaint against Jindal was lodged at Galhotra’s instance. The court urged the CBI to seek instructions whether the officer would voluntarily recuse from all cases.