Bringing the agency’s role in the multi-crore coal allocation case under a cloud of suspicion, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that it was “completely inappropriate” for the former CBI director Ranjit Sinha to have privately met prominent scam accused in the absence of investigating officers.
Expressing serious concern, the apex court said an independent inquiry was necessary into whether the meetings affected the probe, including the charge sheets and closure reports filed in the court. It sought the assistance of the Central Vigilance Commission, the country’s top anti-corruption watchdog, to determine a methodology for conducting the inquiry and asked it to report back on July 6. The Supreme Court had cancelled 214 coal block allocations after finding them illegal and ordered fresh auctions.
Thursday’s 23-page order by a Special Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Sikri came on an application filed by the NGO, Common Cause, through counsel Prashant Bhushan, alleging that Mr. Sinha frequently met with the accused even as the probe and prosecution were on.
Placing on record the entry register and documents he claimed to have accessed through a whistleblower, Mr. Bhushan wanted the court to set up a Special Investigation Team to investigate Mr. Sinha’s conduct.
The former CBI chief countered this by accusing Mr. Bhushan of perjury. He questioned the veracity of the documents produced and their source, the anonymous whistleblower.
The same entry register, again produced through Mr. Bhushan, had led the Supreme Court to order Mr. Sinha to recuse himself from the 2G Spectrum probe. This order came days before his retirement in December 2014. However, the court had not ordered an SIT probe in that case.
Shocking admission
In this order, Justice Lokur wrote that the apex court did not want to go into the “thicket” of allegations that Mr. Sinha tried to “scuttle” the coal scam probe. It expressed shock at Mr. Sinha’s candid admission that he met the accused persons, justifying it was part of his job.
“Even if Mr. Sinha is right, there cannot at all be any justification for him to meet any accused person in a criminal case where investigation is under way, without the investigating officer being present... allegedly several times, including late at night,” Justice Lokur observed.
The court pooh-poohed the CBI’s separate plea that a further probe against Mr. Sinha would lead to the agency losing its credibility. “This argument is fallacious. If an independent inquiry shows that the CBI has acted fairly, it will enhance its institutional credibility and its image. On the other hand, if the inquiry shows that Mr. Sinha managed to influence some specific investigations in the coal block allocations case, it will serve the larger public interest...”
Dismissing the possibility of a perjury action against Mr. Bhushan or the whistleblower, the order said they acted in public interest.
