Strongly responding to allegations that the number two man in the country’s premier investigative agency is compromised and was appointed against the wishes of the CBI Director, the Centre on Friday declared R.K. Asthana as an “outstanding” officer who successfully steered investigations in 40-odd scams, including the UPA 2 government’s coal scam and cases against Delhi government’s ministers and officials.
In a bristling response to the Supreme Court, Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal pooh-poohed claims that Mr. Asthana was appointed against CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma’s note of dissent.
Rubbishing any notion of friction within the CBI’s top two men, Mr. Venugopal said Mr. Verma, instead of complaining, had “fully recommended Mr. Asthana strongly for appointment as CBI Special Director, and continues to do so.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Minutes of meeting
The Attorney-General dished out the minutes of meeting held by the selection committee, which includes the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, on October 21 to show that Mr. Verma was a special invitee and was privy to the entire selection process.
“The selection of Mr. Asthana was totally unanimous. There was no dissent. He is eminently suitable to hold the position of Special Director, CBI. He has a body of work including the Agusta Westland case, Hassan Ali, Moin Qureshi, Paramount Airways, chit fund scam, etc,” Mr. Venugopal submitted.
ADVERTISEMENT
The AG said the CBI chief had furnished a confidential letter before the selection committee, enclosing an “unsigned note” containing certain references to "one Shri Rakesh Asthana" in connection with Sterling Biotech and other entities. However, there was nothing to prove that the “Asthana” mentioned in the unverified note and the CBI Special Director were the same person. Besides, the Central Vigilance Commission does not “take seriously” such unverified complaints, the AG explained.
Pending FIR
On allegation that an FIR is pending against Mr. Asthana, the top law officer argued that the court’s job is confined to looking into whether the decision-making process is valid or not. The merits of the FIR is not within the court’s domain.
The AG said Mr. Asthana was already an additional director with the CBI at the time of his appointment as Special Director, which involved only a salary change. Mr. Asthana had also held the position of CBI director-in-charge for a while.
The Bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and A.M. Sapre reserved the PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, for quashing the appointment of Mr. Asthana as Special Director, CBI. The court said it will pronounce the verdict on November 28.
Close nexus
They alleged that Mr. Asthana had close nexus with some companies currently under CBI probe. The NGO had alleged that having him in such a sensitive post would harm the “institutional integrity” of the CBI.
An additional affidavit by the NGO had claimed that Mr. Asthana’s son had worked in the same company under the CBI scanner and his daughter’s pre-wedding party was held in a Vadodara farmhouse owned by the company’s owners.
The additional affidavit had even referred to reportage that fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya took leverage from Mr. Asthana’s appointment to prevent his own extradition from the U.K. to India, citing that investigating agencies do not function independently.
“Do you think a person’s career should be destroyed because somebody comes to court citing some ‘secret’ information,” Mr. Venugopal lashed out in response to the allegations.
“As for the Vijay Mallya allegation, that gentleman pays money to a London professor to write a letter so that he can use it against his extradition based on materials somebody feeds him from here,” Mr. Venugopal scoffed at the allegation made by the petitioner side.
Mr. Bhushan claimed that the allegations were based on documents accessed through RTI.
To this, Mr. Venugopal said “RTI is only a cover...”