Judiciary in a messy episode

BRP Bhskar

gulf Today

India’s Supreme Court has done much damage to itself by the way it handled the case of Alok Verma, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, a police establishment directly under the central government.

Verma became CBI chief in January 2017. Under the law he had an assured tenure of two years but the government shunted him off as Director of Fire Services.

He was removed on the recommendation of Central Vigiliance Commissioner KV Chowdary who was looking into certain allegations against him referred by the Cabinet Secretary.

The action came in the wake of infighting in the CBI between Verma and Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre officer who was brought in by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as Special Director and quickly became a rival power centre within it.

Even as Verma and Asthana were pursuing corruption charges against each other, Modi summoned both of them but could not bring about a rapprochement. The next day, in a midnight operation, the government sent both of them on leave and gave charge of the agency to M Nageshwar Rao with the designation of Interim Director.

The task of clearing the mess fell on the Supreme Court as both Verma and Asthana approached it as aggrieved parties. It kept Asthana’s petition aside, and took up that of Verma, who was a tenure officer. It placed curbs on Nageshwar Rao to prevent any improper exercise of power.

The court allowed the CVC to proceed with the inquiry against Verma under the supervision of one of its former judges, AK Patnaik.

Then things started going awry. Annoyed by newspaper reports about the CVC probe, which it presumed was based on information leaked by one or the other of the parties before it, the court said, “None of you deserve a hearing.”

On January 8, the court ordered Verma’s reinstatement. At the same time it asked the three-member committee authorised by law to select the CBI chief to consider the matter further.

A day after Verma resumed charge as Director, the committee met and decided by a 2-1 majority to send him to the Fire Services again. 

The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him are the members of the committee. CJI Ranjan Gogoi nominated Justice AK Sikri as his representative. He sided with Modi who wanted Verma’s removal.

There are reasons to doubt if the three-judge bench headed by the CJI had acted judiciously in reinstating Verma who was facing corruption charges and directing the three-member committee to take a call on his continuance.

The committee is a mechanism devised by law to prevent the government of the day from making appointment to the sensitive post on political grounds. Its role is limited to selecting an officer. The law does not confer on it any disciplinary control over the officer.

The CJI acted unwisely in choosing Justice Sikri to represent him in the committee as his name was under the government’s consideration for an assignment in London. Public criticism for siding with the government in the committee forced Justice Sikri to reject the assignment. 

Justice Sikri said he voted for Verma’s removal as the CVC’s report contained prima facie findings against him. However, Justice Patnaik who supervised the CVC probe told the media there was no evidence of corruption against Verma.

Alok Verma’s transfer to the Fire Services was untenable as he was a superannuated officer. He was able to stay on as CBI Director after retirement as it is a tenure post. Instead of accepting the new post, he sent in his resignation.

According to media reports, when the government packed off Verma from the CBI, papers relating to nine important cases were on his table. One of them related to the Rafale scandal in which the Opposition has accused Modi of favouring businessman Anil Ambani to the detriment of a public sector undertaking.

Another case before him related to the medical admission scam in which the name of a former Chief Justice of India had come up. 

The Judiciary needs to draw lessons from this messy episode to avoid its repetition in the interests of its own fair name.

It must give serious thought to the question of associating itself with the government outside the constitutional framework. When it is involved in the selection of the CBI chief, how can any one aggrieved by the choice approaching it for relief with confidence? This problem can possibly be overcome by amending the law to include in the selection committee a former CJI nominated by the CJI instead of the CJI or a serving judge nominated by him. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, January 22, 2018.