An unfair charge against the Attorney General

The Coalgate scam probe is being monitored by Supreme Court. File photo: AP

The Coalgate scam probe is being monitored by Supreme Court. File photo: AP   | Photo Credit: Anupam Nath

Shyam Divan’s article in The Hindu (Op-Ed, “ >Alpine amnesia and the Attorney General,” July 10, 2013) completely surprised me.

The investigation is being monitored by the Supreme Court in a PIL. This PIL involves two distinct aspects. First, the legality and constitutionality of coal block allocations to private parties by the Government of India. Second, the offences, if any, committed by officers of the Central government in allotting coal blocks to different parties. The first aspect involves the question of constitutionality and legality of the allotments made by the Central government. The Attorney General is defending the allotments on legal grounds. The second aspect involves the CBI’s investigation, which the court is monitoring with the purpose of ensuring it is free and fair. These two issues are separate and distinct.

Mr. Divan completely mixes up these two distinct aspects of the Coalgate PIL and fabricates a situation which is untrue and false. It is obvious that he has not read the affidavit filed by the CBI Director. That is why he rushes to draw a conclusion that the AG is advising the CBI in this matter. If Mr. Divan had cared to read the affidavit, he would have realised the only issue on which the AG was asked for his views was how the status report was to be filed in court — whether it should be an affidavit in a sealed cover. For Mr. Divan to conclude that the AG is “even advising” the CBI is a deliberate falsehood.

Mr. Divan also proceeds on a misconception that the AG is defending the officials concerned of the government. He should know that the investigation ranges from 1993 to 2008 and almost all the officers who may be investigated have long gone out. They are certainly not part of the present team defending the allocations. When a law officer appears for the Union of India in such matters, he appears for the state and not for any individual official. Thus, the question of defending any official personally, while defending the allocations, does not arise.

(Tripurari Ray is an advocate in the Supreme Court.)

> Shyam Divan responds

A letter from the Editor

Dear reader,

We have been keeping you up-to-date with information on the developments in India and the world that have a bearing on our health and wellbeing, our lives and livelihoods, during these difficult times. To enable wide dissemination of news that is in public interest, we have increased the number of articles that can be read free, and extended free trial periods. However, we have a request for those who can afford to subscribe: please do. As we fight disinformation and misinformation, and keep apace with the happenings, we need to commit greater resources to news gathering operations. We promise to deliver quality journalism that stays away from vested interest and political propaganda.

Support Quality Journalism
Related Topics
Recommended for you
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Jun 4, 2020 4:57:42 AM |

Next Story