The fact that the Government interfered in the coal scam investigation has come as a major embarrassment for Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Harin Raval, the CBI counsel, who had unequivocally informed the Supreme Court to the contrary.
It has emerged that the ASG had no clue about it when he made his submission in the court on March 12 that no part of investigation was shared with the political executive.
To ensure that the CBI investigation is kept insulated from Government influence, the bench headed by Justice RM lodha had asked Raval whether any part of the investigation was shared with the political executive. He stated that the reports were vetted at the level of Director CBI and no portion of the report was shared with executive.
It was on the basis of his statement that the bench directed that this position should continue in future too and directed the probe agency to file a fresh status report before April 30, the next date of hearing.
The latest revelation has come as an embarrassment for the CBI which could now find it difficult to defend its earlier stand. Sources in the CBI, however, point out that the statement of the law officer was not on instructions. “Our affidavit in the Supreme Court will reveal the clear position,” CBI sources said.
On the previous date when the court heard the PIl in the coal scam, clear differences emerged between the Centre and CBI, which was seen as a healthy sign of progress of investigations by the bench.
The court, while examining the demand by the PIls to set aside of all allocations, read out portions from the CBI status report that revealed no system was employed to verify vital facts and claims of appellant companies, their financial strength and capabilities. “The way allocations are made prima facie shows no uniformity or rationale and being arbitrarily done,” the court read out from the status report filed by CBI in a sealed cover.
Attorney General GE Vahanvati questioned conspiracy theory sought to be pursued by the CBI. With an air of resentment he had noted, “Every policy of the Gover
nment is being challenged on one ground or other.”
But the bench saw this as an attempt to “directly or indirectly affect” the ongoing CBI probe and went on to direct the CBI to file all its status reports in court without sharing it with the political executive.
By the next date, the court asked the Centre to explain what uniform criteria it adopted to select or reject 2000-odd applications. It had read the CBI report that gave a prima facie view that a pick-and-choose method was possibly adopted to select 150 applicants.