Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 7
The Supreme Court is all set to decide the fate of Central Bureau of Investigation Director Alok Verma. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce its verdict on Tuesday on his petition challenging the Centre’s decision to divest him of all powers and to send him on leave.
Verma—who is due to retire on January 31—and Special Director Rakesh Asthana have been at loggerheads for quite some time. They were sent on leave on October 23 last year, prompting them both to file separate petitions challenging the government’s decision. Asthana’s petition remains pending.
The Centre had defended its decision to divest Verma and Asthana of their powers and send them on leave, saying the public fight between the two top CBI officers made the probe agency a subject of ridicule.
“Dispute between CBI Director and Special Director was pulling down integrity and respect of premier institution. The two top officers were fighting against each other and went public which exposed CBI to ridicule…They were fighting like Kilkenny cats,” Attorney General had submitted.
The Bench—which also included Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph—had reserved its judgment on December 6 after marathon arguments from senior counsel Fali Nariman for Verma, Attorney General KK Venugopal for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Central Vigilance Commission, Additional Solicitor General PS Nasarimha for CBI, senior counsel Dushyant Dave for Common Cause, senior counsel Rajiv Dhavan for CBI DSP AK Bassi and senior advocate Kapil Sibal for Congress leader in Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge.
The Bench had fired a volley of questions at the Solicitor General and asked him to explain why the appointment panel comprising the Prime Minister, CJI and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha was not consulted.
“It’s not that the fight between Verma and Asthana emerged overnight and the government was forced to take immediate steps to divest the CBI Director of his powers without consulting the Selection Committee,” the CJI had asked.
The CJI said: “Essence of administration is to do what is acceptable. If there are two options, one acceptable and the other more acceptable, what stopped from the Centre from going for the more acceptable option?”
Mehta justified the Centre’s decision saying the “extraordinary” situation warranted such measures.
“Instead of investigating serious cases, the two officers of CBI were filing FIRs against each other. Evidence would have been tampered with. It was a surprising situation and CVC needed to act. Some urgent action—short of removal and transfer—was needed to deal with the extraordinary situation.”
The Solicitor General had said the CVC was accountable to President, Parliament and to courts if the issue was raised in a PIL. “The CVC could have been held guilty of dereliction of duty if it had not taken the decision it took on October 23,” he said.
Mehta had submitted unlike the CVC and vigilance commissioners, the CBI Director did not have special protection (with regard to removal) and the latter had only protection of tenure.
At one point, the CJI had asked Nariman if the court had power to appoint an interim or acting CBI Director. Nariman had answered in the affirmative.
Nariman, Dave, Sibal and Dhavan had sought to emphasise the security of tenure for CBI Director that was cut short due to the Centre’s decision to divest him of all his powers. The appointment panel should have been consulted, they pointed out.