Director admits draft report was changed
NEW DELHI, Apr 30:In a damning indictment, the Supreme Court today said CBI’s act of sharing the status report on Coalgate with the Government has “shaken” the entire investigation process and vowed to “liberate” the agency from political influence and interference.
Notwithstanding some strong words, the Supreme Court’s observations and directions in the coal blocks allocation scam came as a breather for the beleaguered Government as the CBI Director has been given time till May six to file a fresh affidavit in the case. The matter will come up for hearing on May eight.
At the end of a two-hour hearing, the court sought a series of clarifications from CBI Director Ranjit Sinha “as to why in the status report dated March 8, 2013, no disclosure was made to the court that the draft report has been shared with the political executive”.
It also wanted to know Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval had made an assertive statement on March 12 that the status report was not shared with anyone.
The bench headed by justice R M Lodha also asked why in the April 26 affidavit the CBI did not give details about changes made in the draft report and at whose instance besides Law Minister Ashwani Kumar and two senior officials of PMO and Coal ministry.
At the outset, the bench also comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Kurien Joseph said the CBI Director’s affidavit has brought out a “very disturbing feature” and the “very foundation of the investigation process has been shaken”.
“The first thing we have to do is to liberate CBI from extranesous considerations, political influence, intrusions and other interference,” the bench said.
The court said that even after 15 years of Vineet Narain judgement to make CBI independent, the political clout still “frustrates” its impartiality.
“When this court had said in an unequivocal term that investigation has to be uninfluenced and without interference. That strong foundation is shaking.
“The fact is that this court said that you should be free from interferences as an investigator. You have to be independent, unbiased and you don’t have to take any instruction from political master,” the bench said.
The bench which questioned the CBI for sharing its probe report with the Government in a serious allegation of corruption, said it showed “total erosion of trust” the court has reposed in the agency.
“Are you not guided by the CrPC? The very foundation of this investigation process has been shaken. This is a premier investigating agency and it has to do something which enhances its credibility, reliability, impartiality and independence.”
“You don’t have to move with the crutches of political executive,” it said, adding, “What we have to do in the situation as it has shaken the entire conscience.”
ASG Raval was replaced by senior advocate U U Lalit to represent the CBI in the matter which has been described as “very serious matter” by the bench.
Referring to subsequent affidavit by the CBI Director that the draft report was shared with the Law Minister and joint Secretaries of PMO and Coal Ministry, the bench asked the Director as to why he did not give details “about the changes made in the draft report and if changes were made, to what extent the changes were made and at whose instance whether besides three persons named in para four of the affidavit whether the draft report was shared by any other person.”
It also asked the CBI Director to disclose the names of two officials one each of PMO and Ministry of Coal with whom the draft report was shared as desired by them.
The CBI Director in his fresh affidavit will have to give details of the “manual and guidelines” on the issue of sharing of status report in cases in which reports are called for by the courts.
It also sought detailed information about the team probing the case including the CVs of DIGs/SPs to ascertain their career details.
During the hearing, the bench also pulled up the Centre for not furnishing all the information required by the CBI. The agency pointed out in its report that Coal Ministry is not giving information required in conducting its probe.
“It is very serious that certain information sought by the CBI from the Ministry is not furnished,” the bench said adding, “On the one hand your joint secretary wants to see status report but on the other hand he is not ready to furnish documents requisitioned by the CBI.”
The bench said that the CBI must be “insulated” from all kinds of interferences for restoring its “impartiality”.
“We have to insulate the CBI from political and any other types of interferences. We have to undertake this exercise so that this premier organisation restores its position of impartiality.”
At the very outset, the bench expressed its displeasure over the sharing of the draft report and posed several queries to Lalit.
“We believed you(CBI). We trusted you. Still you did not disclose anything. Even you did not state anything by way of status report that the draft was discussed and the draft was changed. Despite the affidavit being filed on April 26, this court was kept in the dark,” the bench said.
The bench said that despite the emphatic assertion by the CBI on March 12 that it did not share the report with Government, it had its own doubts which led to passing of an order asking the CBI Director to file an affidavit on this issue.
“When on March 12, we passed the order, there were in our mind some lurking doubts that is why we called for an affidavit and passed such order.
Referring to the judgement in Vineet Narain case, the bench said it was “really more serious” issue as even today CBI is not out of control of political and executive bosses.
It said that as per the judgement, though the Minister concerned has the power to call for information generally regarding the cases being handled by the agencies, the authority is “subject to the condition that none of them would permit the Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case”.
“This (Judgement) is being getting misconstrued vis-a-vis investigation. Will it not reconcile with the investigation and with the functioning of the Government. Can in that situation, the minister have the power to give direction to the agencies? Will it not frustrate the independence of the investigation? CBI has to be impartial, free from extraneous consideration and sources and political influence,” the bench said.
“It is not that justice has to be done but it should seem to have been done. Similarly, investigation should not be only impartial but it should seem to have been impartial,” the bench observed adding “had it not been asserted by the ASG that the draft report was not shared, everything would have been pushed under the carpet”.
“How do you proceed? There is intrusion from every direction. Intrusion is from right, intrusion is from left and intrusion is from above, intrusion is from below. This intrusion was deliberate,” the bench said.
Meanwhile, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha today admitted that changes were made in the draft report and he has given full details of this to the Supreme Court.
Asked by reporters about the contents of the status report submitted to the apex court today, Sinha said the agency has given full details about the original draft and the “amended draft” of the status report including changes that have been brought about and on whose instructions.
“Whatever Supreme Court has observed, we will reply to it in our affidavit before May 6,” he said.
Sinha said he would explain circumstances in which he went to the Law Minister’s office.
Following the comments of the apex court, Sinha went into a huddle with his senior officers to decide the future course of action.
Emerging from a 30-minute meeting at his North Block office, Sinha said he would respond to all queries raised by the Supreme Court today in his affidavit as directed.
When asked whether he would demand more autonomy from Supreme Court, Sinha said, “It is a matter between government and judiciary, I cannot comment on that.”
He said it is for them to take a call on what type of autonomy needs to be given to the investigating agency and under what circumstances it should interact with the political masters.
Sinha had, in a two-page affidavit, admitted before the SC that its status report on the coal blocks probe was shared with Law Minister Ashwani Kumar and joint secretary level officers in Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Coal Ministry.
The admission triggered an opposition attack on Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and demands for Law Minister’s resignation. The demand was, however, rejected by Singh.
“I submit that the draft of the same (status report) was shared with Law Minister as desired by him prior to its submission before the Supreme Court. Besides the political executive, it was also shared with one joint secretary level officer each of Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of Coal as desired by them,” Sinha had said.
The affidavit, filed on the direction of the apex court, was contrary to submission made by Additional Solicitor General Hiren Raval before SC that the coalgate scam report was not shared with any member of the government.
Earlier, the CBI and the Centre had clashed over the coalgate scam with the agency telling the apex court that there have been “arbitrary allotments without scrutiny” in the coal blocks allocation during UPA-I tenure and the government vehemently refuting the findings saying that the “CBI is not the final word on this.”
In its status report filed on March 8, the CBI had said that the coal block allocation during 2006-09 was done without verifying the credentials of companies which allegedly misrepresented facts about themselves and no rationale was given by the Coal Ministry in giving coal blocks to them.
CBI has so far registered 11 FIRs in the matter.
Meanwhile, the coalgate scam today claimed its first victim as Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval resigned from the post in the wake of the controversy over his statement in the Supreme Court that the CBI probe report was not shared with anyone.
Raval, who was replaced as the CBI counsel in the crucial hearing today, handed over his resignation to Law Minister Ashwani Kumar in the evening.
“I have submitted my resignation to the Law Minister,” he told.
His resignation came a day after he created a political storm by writing a hard-hitting letter to Attorney General G E Vahanvati in which he accused him of interfering in the preparation of CBI’s probe report and was made a scapegoat in the matter.
Raval, who was the ASG since July 4, 2009, said he has no regret in writing the controversial letter in which he claimed that the Attorney General was also present in the meeting on March 6 when the draft status report was shared with Law Minister and two officials of joint secretary rank of the PMO and Ministry of Coal.
“Yes, I stand by what I have stated in my letter to the Attorney General,” he said to a question.
In the letter, Raval claimed that despite being aware of the contents of the status report, the AG on March 12 submitted in the apex court that he was not in the know of it.
Raval said due to AG’s submission, he was also forced to take the same stand.
“…While replying to the queries on March 12, 2013 as regards what was contained in the Status Report, you had deemed it appropriate to take a stand that the contents of the Status Report were not known to you, which fact you knew to be incorrect.
“On account of your statement, I felt embarrassed and was forced to take a stand, in Court, consistent with your submission made as Attorney General for India, that the contents of the Status Report were not known to you and that they were not shared with the Government,” Raval said in his letter to the AG.
In his letter, Raval also claimed that he was asked to attend a meeting with the law minister in the presence of the AG and also the CBI Director to consider whether the CBI should disclose the status of investigation on an affidavit in compliance of the order dated January 24 or should a Status Report be filed.
He claimed that he had reiterated his stand of filing an affidavit in the court and “was a silent spectator when a decision was taken to file a Status Report instead of an Affidavit,” which was to be shown to the AG as was decided in the meeting.
Raval claimed that in many high profile cases he had to face indignation on account Vahanvati’s temperament.
Raval concluded his letter saying, “It has constantly pained and anguished me that I have had to face unnecessary indignation on account of your intolerant temperament towards the conscientious discharge of duties especially in high profile cases.
“I have held you in great esteem as leader of our team but your flip flop attitude towards me has always put me under unnecessary pressure.”
“I have a feeling that I am sought to be made scapegoat but I am confident that truth will always prevail.” (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel