The CBI has become a caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice, this damning observation by the Supreme Court on Wednesday summed up the way the country’s premier investigating agency has conducted itself in probing the coal scam.
During the three-hour-long hearing in the jam-packed court room, a three member bench exposed the CBI and its political masters in a way that left no scope for doubt that the probe agency had become a puppet in the hand of its bosses.
In a severe indictment of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the court also observed that the heart of the CBI draft report was changed at the behest of a PMO official.
Insulating the CBI team probing the coal block allocation scam from any future political interference, the Court hinted that it may go after the PMO official and the law Minister to get to the truth behind the Government’s bid to sabotage the CBI status report filed in court on March 8.
The CBI Director’s affidavit, which disclosed that significant changes were made to the draft report at the instance of law Minister Ashwani Kumar, Attorney General GE Vahanvati, PMO Joint Secretary Shatrughna Singh and Joint Secretary AK Bhalla of Ministry of Coal, came for sharp criticism by the bench of Justices RM lodha, Madan B lokur and Kurien Joseph.
“The CBI has become a caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice. This affidavit shows that there is one CBI and many masters,” the bench observed.
Seeing a direct conflict of interest in the agency brass meeting the Government officials of the very Ministries whose actions were under probe, the bench seemed to have little trust left in the CBI.
When the SC asked the Centre whether it intended to bring out any law that restores the independence of the CBI, the Attorney General said that giving full independence will result in the CBI becoming an unruly horse.
Referring to its 1997 landmark verdict in the Vineet Narain case, the bench asked the Centre what business had two Joint Secretaries to visit the CBI headquarters on March 6, go through the entire report and come back the next day to strike off crucial portions of the preliminary enquiry report into the prime allocations made between 2006 and 2009 from consideration of the apex court. It asked the AG to file an affidavit before the next date to indicate whether the Centre contemplated any law to provide the CBI with functional autonomy.
The Court also asked the Centre to make efforts to bring some law for ensuring the CBI’s independence and to insulate it from external influence, before any such exercise is undertaken by the court.
“We would like the law to be in place before the next date of hearing on July 10. We know that Parliament will not be in session, but there are ways to do it,” a bench headed by Justice R M lodha said.
“The best thing would be that the law would be in place in between when we hear the matter again,” the bench observed. It said, CBI has to be “non-partisan” by law and an impartial agency.
“The golden day would be if the law is in place and we hope this to be before the next date of hearing,” the bench observed before concluding the day’s hearing.
The court noted that a query was put in this regard to Attorney General GE Vahanvati, who submitted that he will seek instructions from the Government and will report to the court on the next date of hearing.
"We wanted to know from Attorney General whether the Central Government intends to bring some law to ensure independence of CBI, its functional autonomy and insulation from external influence with a view to make CBI a non-partisan agency.
In the event no such law is proposed, the bench said: "We may have to undertake a similar exercise as we did in the Vineet Narain case. In light of events which have happened, this exercise has become imminent."
On his own role in proposing changes to the draft report after seeing the two crucial preliminary enquiries prepared by the agency, Vahanvati claimed innocence, backed suitably by Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, senior lawyer TR Andhyarujina appearing as special counsel for the Centre, and a battery of lawyers from the SC Bar Association, who rallied for his support. Accepting that the AG was correct to the extent of not calling for the report on his own, the bench said it expected the top law officer to have disclosed that he had seen the report.
Referring to the other meeting of CBI officials with law Minister Ashwani Kumar, who ordered significant changes to the same draft report sitting in his office with the AG, CBI Director and then ASG Harin Raval, the Court held the view: "Changes were made in paragraphs 1.21 and 1.23 of PE 2 (allocations made between 2006-09) are of significant nature. They were the heart of the report that was amended. The entire direction of the probe is sought to be changed as the portion which states there is no system in place nor any broadsheets or charts maintained by the Screening Committee, is removed. The investigation then goes in a particular direction."
Seeking an answer on the culpability of the law Minister, the bench said: "Can the law Minister ask the CBI to show him detailsIJ This is a crucial question to be considered."
Prompted by the Vineet Narain judgment that did not permit even the Minister in charge of Department of Personnel and Training, the nodal Ministry of CBI, to interfere with an ongoing probe, the bench wondered, "What is the role of the law Minister in this investigationIJ .Whether what he has done is legally permissible will have to be answered," leaving the consideration of this question till July 10, the next date of hearing.
Finding serious fault with the two officials of the PMO and Coal Ministry meeting the CBI, the bench saw the matter in the correct perspective."We are dealing with two officials whose actions of omission and commission are under scrutiny…They are representatives of two Ministries who are under the scanner. There is absolutely nothing to justify what has happened."
Advocate Prashant Bhushan who appeared for one of the petitioners Common Cause, demanded that an affidavit be filed by the two officers to indicate on whose behalf they had acted.
"If this fact influences the probe one way or the other, we will consider. They may have done it at somebody's instance or it may be a case where they tried to be more pious than the Pope. We are not foreclosing this issue or else it will get mixed up with the main issue before us."
The court passed stricture against CBI Director Ranjit Sinha for not standing tall against the Government's attempt to compromise with the CBI probe. It was livid over the affidavit dismissing the series of meeting held with PMO and Coal officials as "regular interactions". The court asked the agency: "Is the job of your officers to interact or interrogate," wondering whether a "collaborative" effort was underway where the CBI may have permitted the Joint Secretaries to carry the report and return it with changes the next day.
While being open to the suggestion of constituting a Special Investigation Team, the Court gave a final chance to test the CBI's integrity, asking it to file a further status report by July 8.
The SC brought back the previous supervising officer of the coal scam investigation DIG Ravikant Misra, as part of the 33-member strong CBI team in coalgate, directing that no outsider will have access to the team while denying any Minister, Government official, law officer of the CBI, Government law officers, Director of Prosecution or anybody outside the team, except the CBI Director, to have access to probe reports.