The Supreme Court will hear on Friday a petition filed by Common Cause, a non-governmental organisation, through advocate Prashant Bhushan, to quash the “illegal divestment” of the functions and duties of the office of CBI Director from Alok Verma, calling it a “brazen interference” by the government in the functioning of the agency.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Thursday acknowledged the urgency of the issue, and tagged the petition along with a separate one filed by Mr. Verma on October 24, challenging how he was exiled “overnight” from office. Both the petitions of Mr. Verma and Common Cause will be heard by the Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi.
The orders issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and seconded by the Centre on October 23 had reasoned that divestment was necessitated to retain the credibility of the CBI and to ensure there was no erosion of public faith in the institution due to the persisting acrimony between Mr. Verma and CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who was also asked to sit out.
The petition sought the quashing of the order of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet of October 23, giving senior CBI officer M. Nageshwar Rao charge of the agency. The CBI Director can be appointed by the Centre only on the basis of a recommendation made by a high-powered committee led by the Prime Minister and including the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.
Amended procedure
The petition contended that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013 had amended the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946, under which the CBI was constituted.
Further, considering the fact that the amendments had substituted the Central Vigilance Commissioner-led panel with the high-powered panel led by the Prime Minister, any “transfer” or withdrawal of work from the incumbent CBI Director, that too, before his statutory two-year term ended, would necessarily require the previous consent of the PM-led committee as mandated in Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act, the petition said.
Again, under the amendments, the CVC, under Section 4C of DSPE Act, has power only to recommend the appointment, curtail or extend the terms of CBI officers from the level of the Superintendent of Police to above, including the CBI Special Director, but not the CBI Director.
The petition sought the removal of Mr. Asthana and urged the court to order a SIT investigation into the unprecedented incidents witnessed recently within the CBI and corruption allegations levelled against senior agency officials.
Earlier on Thursday, Mr. Bhushan had orally mentioned the petition before a Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi and urged the court to tag his petition along with the one filed by Mr. Verma on October 24.
‘Evidence concocted’
In his petition, Mr. Verma has highlighted governmental interference in CBI functioning and lashed out at Mr. Asthana, accusing the latter of stymieing decisions made in investigations of sensitive cases even monitored by the Supreme Court. Mr. Verma accused Mr. Asthana of “concocting evidence” to impair his reputation.
Mr. Bhushan had earlier, in 2017, represented Common Cause in the Supreme Court in a plea to quash the appointment of Mr. Asthana, a senior Gujarat-cadre IPS officer, as Special Director of CBI. Common Cause had then alleged that “investigating officers in the Sterling matter would not be able to freely and fairly investigate the role of their hierarchical superior, who is known to be close to Sandesara/Sterling Biotech Ltd. and therefore, the institutional integrity of CBI would be compromised.”
