Government and CBI in Supreme Court scrap as Attorney-General claims the agency's word 'isn't gospel truth'Â
The Centre and the CBI were at loggerheads in the Supreme Court on Tuesday on whether a mandatory go-ahead from the government is needed before initiating an investigation against any officer of the level of joint secretary and above even in court-monitored cases.
The CBI - once referred to as a "caged parrot" by the court - drew eyeballs when it countered Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati's contention that the mere fact that a case was being monitored by a court did not empower the agency to initiate a probe against a senior bureaucrat without sanction from the government.
Opposing any freedom to the agency to probe senior officers without informing the government, Vahanvati stated, "Let us not proceed on the basis that what the CBI says is the gospel truth," the attorney-general submitted before a bench, presided over by Justice R.M. Lodha, which is monitoring the investigation of the coal scam.
The CBI, headed by Ranjit Sinha (pictured) was criticised by the Attorney-General in court
The Centre stated in an affidavit a few days ago that complete autonomy could not be granted to the agency as there had been "instances in the past where allegations of extortion and bribery leading to coloured investigation have emerged against some CBI officers".
CBI counsel Amarendra Sharan retorted, saying what is truth is tested not at the stage of investigation but at the stage of trial.
Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act makes it mandatory for the CBI to seek sanction from the government before initiating a probe against senior bureaucrats.
The provision was in addition to the need for sanction to prosecute government servants chargesheeted after investigation.
Earlier, Sharan had made his intentions clear by intervening while Vahanvati was still making his submissions. Hinting at the possibility of harassment of officers by the CBI even in court-monitored cases, Vahanvati said superintendence of a case was different from investigation.
"The court does not know who will be investigated," he said.
"CBI is prepared to bring to the notice of the court the names of persons who are to be investigated," Sharan said.
With opposition from unexpected quarters, the attorney-general took a few steps backward by suggesting: "Let CBI file an application before the court in this regard. The court should decide on goahead after seeking the views of the government," he suggested.
With CPIL counsel Prashant Bhushan pointing out that a bench presided over by Justice G.S. Singhvi had already held that there was no need for such clearance from the government in court-monitored cases, Vahanvati said it was not a reasoned order and was passed without hearing the Centre.
"That is one-line order. The bench was not told about the fact that the question was being decided by this bench… The order does not refer to arguments addressed," he said.
'I'm scared they'll take my family': Five-year-old daughter of illegal immigrants is blessed by Pope Francis after breaking through security barricades to ask him to help her family stay in America
