The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the petitions filed by the former Union Law Minister, Ram Jethmalani, and others relating to black money stashed away by Indians in foreign banks, even as the Centre strongly opposed the plea to set up a special investigation team (SIT) to track the black money cases.
A Bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar reserved verdict at the conclusion of arguments from senior counsel Anil Divan and Shanti Bhushan for the petitioners and Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam for the Centre.
Mr. Divan argued that the High Level Committee, set up by the Centre on April 22 being subservient to the political executive, could not be effective.
He referred to the consistent stand of the Centre to oppose the SIT and said the constitution of the Committee was to pre-empt the court from using any direction since the present Bench would break up after the summer vacation, in view of the retirement of Justice Reddy in early July.
Pleading for an SIT, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to monitor the investigation, he said: “The nodal agency, in its present form, comprises senior bureaucrats of the highest level. While it is suited for the coordination and exchange of information among different investigating agencies, its composition is such that it may not be viewed by the public as completely independent or immune from pressures of every kind. It is, therefore, not suitable for pursuing an investigation of this kind and taking it to the stage of prosecution where there may be nexus between the persons under investigation and powerful persons.”
He reiterated the demand that the government must make public the names of persons who had kept black money in the Liechtenstein Bank as such information was not covered by any treaty or agreement.
However, the SG opposed the SIT and said the Committee comprising senior officers could effectively conduct the investigation. Any outsider monitoring the probe could not be accountable to the court and such a mechanism had resulted in failure.
Justice Reddy told the SG: “Appointing someone to monitor the investigation is not a reflection either on the officers or on their investigation. Our anxiety is that when officers are lacking in will in effectively pursuing the investigation, the SIT can ensure speed and efficiency in the investigation.”
Justice Nijjar said: “Look at the dimensions of the problem, it will have serious repercussions for the country since Independence.”
When the SG resisted opposed an SIT, Justice Reddy told him: “The case against Hasan Ali Khan was registered in 2007 and you conduct the custodial interrogation in 2011. What is going on in this country, what is the speed of your investigation, you started the probe only after persistent queries from this court.”
However, the SG said the SIT might not be necessary at this stage and the Committee should be allowed a free hand to conduct the investigation. The Bench then reserved verdict.
