Court clips parrot’s wings
BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today
The Supreme Court of India, acting with great finesse, last week clipped the wings of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s interim head whom the Narendra Modi government had installed in office in a midnight operation after sending the agency’s topmost officers on forced leave.
The CBI, established in 1963, had established an early reputation for professionalism by solving some sensational crimes the state police could not unravel.
Its stock fell later as political meddling dented its professionalism. Five years ago, a Supreme Court judge, exasperated by its submissiveness towards political masters, dubbed it “a caged parrot”.
To enable the CBI to function fearlessly the court stipulated that its Director must have an assured tenure of two years.
Under the law the Director is appointed on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner supervises the agency’s work
On becoming the Prime Minister in 2014, Narendra Modi brought Rakesh Asthana, an officer of the Gujarat cadre who was a favourite of his when he was the state’s chief minister, into the CBI and manoeuvred to pitchfork him into a key position.
In 2016, before Anil Sinha’s retirement as Director, his deputy was moved out as Special Secretary in the Home Ministry and Asthana appointed interim head although he lacked the seniority to be considered for the Director’s post.
The three-man committee picked Alok Kumat Verma for the job . Modi then promoted Asthana, who was Additional Director, as Special Director, and started dealing with him, bypassing Verma when he deemed it necessary.
There were now two centres of power in the agency and inevitably there was feud at the top. The first indication of a rot came last month when the CBI stated that Asthana had made a malicious complaint against Verma to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.
It came to light last week that the Cabinet Secretary also wrote to the CVC. It is not clear whether both made the same allegations againt Verma.
Matters came to a head when the CBI filed a first information report in a court alleging Asthana had taken a bribe of Rs 30 million for favouring a meat exporter whose activities were under investigation.
It said an extortion racket was operating in the agency under cover of investigation.
Early this month, Prashant Bhushan, a prominent activist-lawyer, and Arun Shourie, a former leader of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, submitted to Verma a memorandum seeking a proble into the alleged scam relating to the Rafale jet fighter deal. Modi, during an official visit to Paris, had re-negotiated the deal to drop the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and bring in a newly formed Anil Ambani firm as the French arms makers’ Indian partner.
Later there were reports that Verma had called for papers relating to the deal from the Defence Ministry.
When the CBI arrested an officer working under Asthana for allegedly forging documents to implicate Verma, and Asthana’s arrest appeared imminent, Modi called both of them to his office. He could not bring about a rapprochement between the two. Then came the midnight operation.
The Cabinet’s appointments committee sent both Verma and Asthana on leave and appointed M. Nageswar Rao as Interim Director, on the CVC’s recommendations. The whole process, including takeover by Rao, was completed at the dead of night, evidently to prevent Verma securing a court order to maintain status quo.
The CVC’s report states that its recommendations are based on the complaint received from the Cabinet Secretary in July. It offers no explanation for the long delay in initiating preliminary action on the complaint. It makes no mention of Asthana’s complaint against Verma.
Both Verma and Asthana approached the Supreme Court with pleas to quash the actions against them. It, however, took up immediately only Verma’s petition, which alleged political interference in some extremely sensitive matters which were before the CBI and accused Asthna of stymieing certain investigations.
Faced with a fait accompli and needing time to hear all the parties and comie to conclusions, he court ordered interim measures designed primarily to limit the scope for mischief under the interim set=up.
It asked Nageswar Rao not to take any policy decisions. It also told him to provide it in a sealed cover all decisions taken by him after taking over as Interim Director.
The court directed the CVC, who is looking into the complaint against Verma, to complete the inquiry within two weeks under the supervision of retired Supreme Court judge AK Patnaik.
The final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings in this case will have a bearing on the issue of political control over investigative agencies.-- Gulf Today, October 30, 2018
BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today
The Supreme Court of India, acting with great finesse, last week clipped the wings of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s interim head whom the Narendra Modi government had installed in office in a midnight operation after sending the agency’s topmost officers on forced leave.
The CBI, established in 1963, had established an early reputation for professionalism by solving some sensational crimes the state police could not unravel.
Its stock fell later as political meddling dented its professionalism. Five years ago, a Supreme Court judge, exasperated by its submissiveness towards political masters, dubbed it “a caged parrot”.
To enable the CBI to function fearlessly the court stipulated that its Director must have an assured tenure of two years.
Under the law the Director is appointed on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner supervises the agency’s work
On becoming the Prime Minister in 2014, Narendra Modi brought Rakesh Asthana, an officer of the Gujarat cadre who was a favourite of his when he was the state’s chief minister, into the CBI and manoeuvred to pitchfork him into a key position.
In 2016, before Anil Sinha’s retirement as Director, his deputy was moved out as Special Secretary in the Home Ministry and Asthana appointed interim head although he lacked the seniority to be considered for the Director’s post.
The three-man committee picked Alok Kumat Verma for the job . Modi then promoted Asthana, who was Additional Director, as Special Director, and started dealing with him, bypassing Verma when he deemed it necessary.
There were now two centres of power in the agency and inevitably there was feud at the top. The first indication of a rot came last month when the CBI stated that Asthana had made a malicious complaint against Verma to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.
It came to light last week that the Cabinet Secretary also wrote to the CVC. It is not clear whether both made the same allegations againt Verma.
Matters came to a head when the CBI filed a first information report in a court alleging Asthana had taken a bribe of Rs 30 million for favouring a meat exporter whose activities were under investigation.
It said an extortion racket was operating in the agency under cover of investigation.
Early this month, Prashant Bhushan, a prominent activist-lawyer, and Arun Shourie, a former leader of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, submitted to Verma a memorandum seeking a proble into the alleged scam relating to the Rafale jet fighter deal. Modi, during an official visit to Paris, had re-negotiated the deal to drop the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and bring in a newly formed Anil Ambani firm as the French arms makers’ Indian partner.
Later there were reports that Verma had called for papers relating to the deal from the Defence Ministry.
When the CBI arrested an officer working under Asthana for allegedly forging documents to implicate Verma, and Asthana’s arrest appeared imminent, Modi called both of them to his office. He could not bring about a rapprochement between the two. Then came the midnight operation.
The Cabinet’s appointments committee sent both Verma and Asthana on leave and appointed M. Nageswar Rao as Interim Director, on the CVC’s recommendations. The whole process, including takeover by Rao, was completed at the dead of night, evidently to prevent Verma securing a court order to maintain status quo.
The CVC’s report states that its recommendations are based on the complaint received from the Cabinet Secretary in July. It offers no explanation for the long delay in initiating preliminary action on the complaint. It makes no mention of Asthana’s complaint against Verma.
Both Verma and Asthana approached the Supreme Court with pleas to quash the actions against them. It, however, took up immediately only Verma’s petition, which alleged political interference in some extremely sensitive matters which were before the CBI and accused Asthna of stymieing certain investigations.
Faced with a fait accompli and needing time to hear all the parties and comie to conclusions, he court ordered interim measures designed primarily to limit the scope for mischief under the interim set=up.
It asked Nageswar Rao not to take any policy decisions. It also told him to provide it in a sealed cover all decisions taken by him after taking over as Interim Director.
The court directed the CVC, who is looking into the complaint against Verma, to complete the inquiry within two weeks under the supervision of retired Supreme Court judge AK Patnaik.
The final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings in this case will have a bearing on the issue of political control over investigative agencies.-- Gulf Today, October 30, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment