The Supreme Court pulled up the Government on Wednesday for delaying investigation in the coal block allocation scam, after the CBI in its latest status report, disclosed that the Coal Ministry had not supplied crucial documents on blocks allocated by the Screening Committee.
Hinting that it intended to examine the entire bunch of coal allocations by the Government (132 blocks allocated by the Screening Committee in 36 sittings between 1993 and 2008, and 72 blocks by Government Dispensation), the apex court directed the Centre to produce all documents related to the 164 blocks, since 40 blocks had been de-allocated by the Centre.
The court was upset over the non-cooperation on part of the Centre in the face of serious inadequacies pointed out by the CBI.
The agency had pointed to various “deficiencies and infirmities” in the process of allocation, such as not recording minutes of meetings of the Screening Committee and allotment made without any recommendations of State Governments or concerned administrative Ministry of the Centre. In some cases,
allocations changed mid-way and were made contrary to the recommendation.
The bench of Justices RM lodha, Madan lokur and Kurien Joseph said: “In three status reports submitted by the CBI, it still continues to have
the same position of records not being available, detailed minutes not supplied.”
“How can investigation proceed in this mannerIJ If it’s available, it should be given to the CBI and should reflect in your affidavit,” the bench remarked.
Attorney-General GE Vahanvati, who appeared for the Centre said: “It is possible that certain decisions suffer from deficiencies…but the comments of the CBI are not true across the board.” He stated that each allocation was being scrutinized by an Inter Ministerial Group.
However, the AG’s argument failed to impress the bench as it had evidence of the CBI not being supplied records of previous meetings. It read out portions from the latest CBI report indicating that minutes of the 26th Screening Committee had yet to be supplied by the Coal Ministry.
“The CBI is struggling, nothing is given to them,” the bench rued.
The bench observed that its concern was restricted to the manner of allocation - whether an objective consideration was followed or an arbitrary decision was taken. With 40 blocks already de-allocated, the bench told the Centre: “With these deficiencies, you have to justify all the other allocations made in the 36 meetings (of the Screening Committee).”
Giving the Centre four weeks to produce the relevant material, the bench asked the AG to be prepared with all documents when the matter would be taken up for consideration.
Does CBI need Govt sanctionIJ
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).
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.