http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/05/gom-on-cbi-should-not-include-pc-who-is.html
MAY
14
GoM on CBI should not include PC who is under CBI probe: Dr. Swamy to PM
May 14, 2013
Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy
The Prime Minister must re-constitute the GoM on Autonomy for CBI since Mr. P. Chidambaram is himself under a CBI probe in the Aircel Maxis deal. In my Application in the Supreme Court I had submitted documents to show that FIPB clearance given under his signature was a fraud. The SC then asked the CBI on March 18th to look into my allegations. On April 18 th the CBI submitted its first report and the Court observed considerable progress had been made, the matter is posted for July 28th. This was also debated in Rajya Sabha. I then wrote to the PM bringing all this to his attention. Hence I demand Mr. Chidambaram be removed from this GoM.
(Subramanian Swamy)
NEW DELHI, May 15, 2013
Draft law on CBI autonomy an eyewash: BJP PTI
The Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday dubbed as the setting up of a Group of Ministers to draft a new bill to insulate the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from political interference as an eyewash.
Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley said the issue of autonomy of CBI has been discussed at length in the debate over the Lokpal Bill as well as during the meeting of the select committee of the Upper House.
He said the Select Committee has already given its recommendation on the matter and the Union Cabinet has approved most of these.
Mr. Jaitley said there were differences between the government and the Opposition on certain points, but there was a broad agreement on most of the issues regarding autonomy of CBI.
“The new Group of Ministers on autonomy for CBI is an eyewash. There is no need to start afresh,” Mr. Jaitley said, adding the Lokpal Bill passed by Lok Sabha also has provisions on autonomy to CBI. An amendment in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act is sufficient, he said.
The government on Tuesday constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM), headed by Finance Minister P Chidambaram, to prepare a draft law to insulate CBI from external influence and a draft affidavit within three weeks in the Supreme Court which had made scathing observations on the agency.
The Group of Ministers will deliberate on ways to further strengthen CBI’s autonomy and safeguard it from any kind of outside interferences.
The GoM has been constituted after the Supreme Court had indicted CBI for being a “caged parrot” of its political masters while hearing a case related to alleged irregularities in coal blocks allocation.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/draft-law-on-cbi-autonomy-an-eyewash-bjp/article4717620.ece?homepage=true
Liberating the caged parrot
By Sandhya Jain on May 15, 2013
Fifteen years after successive Governments blithely ignored the Supreme Court’s directive to liberate the Central Bureau of Investigation from political control, the scam-tainted UPA regime, spurred into action after the Apex Court castigated the premier investigating agency as a ‘caged parrot,’ finally set up a Group of Ministers to draft legislation to enhance CBI autonomy.
The move is a sequel to sensational developments in the coal block allocation scam, wherein CBI director Ranjit Sinha informed the court that the then Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, Attorney General GE Vahanvati and the then Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval, and two joint secretaries Shatrughna Singh (PMO) and AK Bhalla (Coal Ministry), had vetted the agency report and ordered substantial changes in the same. The CBI was supposed to submit its report to the Court in a sealed cover, the Court felt that the ‘heart of the report’ had been compromised.
Following the Court’s expression of anguish and anger at the blatant flouting of its May 6 orders, the Congress party’s ‘man for all seasons’ Digvijay Singh criticised the Court for being ‘observative’. This resulted in widespread condemnation and public odium, to deflect which the UPA seems to have set up the GoM headed by P Chidambaram (Finance), with Salman Khurshid (External Affairs), Kapil Sibal (Communications & Information Technology), Manish Tiwari (Information & Broadcasting), and V Narayanasamy (MoS, Personnel) as members. They are likely to submit the draft of the new legislation to the Supreme Court before the next hearing in the case on July 10.
The Supreme Court first called for an insulated CBI in the Jain hawala diary case in the late 1990s (Vineet Narain vs Union of India & Another of 18 December 1997) in a judgment by Chief Justice JS Verma and Justices SP Bharucha and SC Sen.
The case began as a complaint of inertia by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a matter against some eminent politicians and other notables, and drew public attention to the need for probity and accountability in public life. Hence, keeping public interest in mind, the Court took the unusual step of appointing the petitioners’ counsel, Anil Divan, as amicus curiae. All persons who desired were permitted to provide relevant material to the amicus curiae for consideration by the court. The Court noted that the CBI and Revenue Department showed definite improvement in their performance once assured of protection in the discharge of their duties.
The Bench observed, “This experience revealed to us the need for the insulation of these agencies from any extraneous influence to ensure the continuance of the good work they have commenced”. It felt this called for “permanent measures” to create a “fair and impartial agency” so that every matter did not have to come before the court on ad hoc basis. Rule of law is the bedrock of democracy; both are embedded in the basic postulate of the concept of equality: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”
The Jain dairies case began with the arrest of one Ashfak Hussain Lone, an alleged member of Hizbul Mujahideen in Delhi on March 25, 1991. Following his interrogation, the CBI conducted raids on the premises of Surender Kumar Jain, his brothers, relations and businesses, and recovered inter alia two diaries and two notebooks containing details of huge payments made to persons identified only by initials. The initials corresponded to the initials of various high-ranking politicians, in and out of power, and high-ranking bureaucrats.
When nothing was done to investigate the Jains or the contents of their diaries, some public interest petitions were filed on October 4, 1993, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The main concern of the petitioners was that the arrest of terrorists had led to the discovery of financial support to them via ‘havala’ transactions; this disclosed a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and criminals; that the CBI and other Government agencies failed to investigate the matter in order to protect influential persons involved; and that this nexus between crime and corruption in high places posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation.
The Court passed a series of orders to the effect that the CBI and other Governmental agencies had not carried out their duty to investigate the offences disclosed; that no one is above the law or exempt from investigation; and that the Court would monitor the investigations to ensure that they were conducted.
The moment a charge sheet was filed in respect of a particular investigation, the ordinary process of the law would take over. This meant there was no presumption of guilt against any accused, and that the actual merits of any accusation against any person(s) would be considered by the competent trial court in separate proceedings.
The Court specifically directed the CBI not to report the progress of the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political executive (Prime Minister) to eliminate any impression of bias or lack of fairness or objectivity and to maintain the credibility of the investigations.
This is precisely the order which was perverted when the then Law Minister, Attorney General and other officials vetted and tampered with the text of the Coalgate scam affidavit. Ranjit Sinha’s decision to expose the same has doubtless paved the way for an eventually independent CBI, which has long been a public demand.
In the Jain dairies case, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Central Vigilance Commission should be conferred statutory status and that the CVC should overview CBI’s functioning.
Fifteen years of inertia followed this judgement. Now, with Ranjit Sinha concurring with the Court observation that the CBI was a ‘caged parrot’ of its political masters, the need to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures is an urgent imperative. A suitable legislation will not come a day too soon.
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/05/15/liberating-the-caged-parrot-77842.html