In a bitter battle inside CBI, Supreme Court Steps in to Resolve Dispute between CBI’s No. 1 and No. 2 and limit CVC’s & Government’s Interference

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

Follow us

Top court of the country stepped in to examine why top officials at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were waging a war against each other. Supreme Court of India on Friday ordered Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to complete ongoing investigation against the CBI Director in two weeks.

Brief History

Incoherence in the functioning of CBI first came to light when CBI Director Mr. Alok Verma raised objections on the appointment of Mr. Rakesh Asthana as CBI special director in October 2017. This issue got more heat when Prashant Bhushan questioned the integrity of Asthana and challenged his appointment in the Supreme Court.  CVC in July 2018 held a meeting to decide promotion of top-officers in law enforcement agencies which Mr. Asthana attended as deputy because Mr. Verma was abroad on some official work. Mr. Alok Verma on his return objected to this action of Mr. Asthana saying that he did not authorize him to act as director in his absence. A month later Mr. Asthana reported to CVC alleging Mr. Verma and certain other officers of receiving bribe from a businessman to aid him in getting relief from repeated questioning. Around mid-October 2018 CBI filed FIR against Mr. Asthana and DSP Devender Kumar accusing them of bribery and corruption and thereafter DSP Devender Kumar was arrested. By this time feud between the two officials had come out in the open. Government to control the damage and maintain the integrity of CBI sent Mr. Rakesh Asthana and Mr. Alok Verma on compulsory vacation, relieving them of their duties and appointed M. Nageswar Rao as interim CBI chief. On the very next day, 13 CBI officers were transferred and case files related to Qureshi were taken in CBI custody. CBI in its FIR filed in mid-October alleged that Mr. Asthana took a bribe of two crores from a businessman through two middlemen to sabotage the probe against meat exporter Moin Qureshi. Apparently, this was the same businessman who according to Mr. Asthana had bribed Mr. Alok Verma and certain other officers to help him get relief from repeated questioning.

Mr. Alok Verma challenged the government order relieving him of his duties before the Supreme Court of India. Mr. Rakesh Asthana followed and N.G.O Common Cause also filed a writ petition on similar facts.

The issue took a political turn when Congress President Rahul Gandhi was detained by Delhi Police for staging a protest demanding the reinstatement of CBI Director Alok Verma. Rahul Gandhi was released later and he said that “PM Modi has destroyed every institution in the country be it CBI or Election Commission. He is attacking each and every institution because there’s only one reason behind it- Chowkidar chor hai. (Watchman is a thief) He has put Rs.30,000 Crore in Anil Ambani’s pocket”.Top Congress leaders also joined the protest march to CBI headquarters demanding an apology from the Prime Minister.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh replied to Rahul Gandhi’s comment saying that Congress doesn’t have any people’s issue to raise which is why they are taking up these non-issues. We should wait for the investigative report. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley defended the action of the government saying that move was necessitated to ensure fairness in the probe even as the CVC, which supervises over the administrative functions of the CBI, is looking into the matter.

Verdict of the Court

Supreme Court ruled that CVC shall complete the investigation against Mr. Verma in two weeks under the supervision of retired judge A.K Patnaik and that interim chief will only carry out daily routine work of CBI. The bench also said that CBI or the government will give a list of all the directions issued by interim-director of CBI Director in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court also commented that it is a matter of national importance and should be herd immediately, The Bench also clarified that because of the national importance of the case for the country and is one-time exception without casting aspersions on any constitutional or statutory authority on the investigation being monitored by a retired Supreme Court judge. Writ Petition by NGO Common Cause was also taken up for hearing, petitioners therein prayed that Mr. Rakesh Asthana should be removed from the post of CBI Special Directors because of various corruption cases pending against him and Interim CBI Director was not fit for the job. Advocate for Rakesh Asthana also tried to address the bench but the bench headed by Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi refused to listen to advocate for Rakesh Asthana as they had not filed any writ petition before the court. Writ Petition was subsequently filed.

Author’s Opinion

The intervention of the Supreme Court is a welcome step as this will ensure that investigation in corruption charges against Alok Verma is completed in a fair and timely manner. This will also give some hint to the investigative agency as to who is the guilty party here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -