The CBI, in a limbo since Wednesday's Gauhati high court verdict declared it "unconstitutional" and stripped it of all policing powers, was 'revived' on Saturday after the Supreme Court stayed the high court order following an appeal by the Centre.
A bench of justices Sathasivam and Ranjana P Desai noticed the promptness with which accused in many cases involving serious offences, including the 2G spectrum scam, moved trial courts seeking a stay on the cases against them following the HC verdict. The apex court's interim order will ensure that the CBI carries on with its work. When the SC mentioned media reports about the accused seeking stay of trials, attorney general G E Vahanvati drove home the point by saying the HC judgment, if not stayed, would bring to a grinding halt 1,000 cases being investigated by the CBI and 9,000 trials currently underway.
The bench expressed prima facie doubts on the manner in which the 1963 resolution setting up the CBI had been drafted, but brushed aside minor objections put forth by advocate L S Chaudhury, counsel for Navendra Kumar - the petitioner before the HC - and stayed the judgment under challenge.
It asked Kumar to file a reply to the petition filed by department of personnel and training (DoPT) - the administrative ministry for the CBI - in two weeks and posted the matter for further hearing on December 6.
Vahanvati contended the division bench of the high court "asked wrong questions on wrong premises and proceeded on a completely wrong direction" and applied a "convoluted reasoning to arrive at a wrong conclusion that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act did not cover the CBI".
He added that the high court had overlooked Section 2 of DSPE Act which empowered the Centre to issue the Resolution in 1963 in the shape of an executive order to create the CBI, a special police force envisaged under the Act.
Immediately after the bench stayed the HC judgment, a buoyant Vahanvati walked out of the CJI's residence, where the hearing was held, and indulged the waiting TV cameras with a rare interaction over the case he successfully argued. Prior to the stay, CBI director Ranjit Sinha was heard saying, on a lighter note, that he was without a job.
In appealing against the HC verdict, DoPT acted with speed rare for the government. The decision to appeal against the verdict in the apex court on Saturday was taken on Friday evening after minister of state for personnel V Narayanswamy met the AG.
Within an hour, the task was assigned to a team of four lawyers led by advocate Devadatt Kamat, which worked through the night and handed over the final draft of the appeal to the AG at 6 am on Saturday. After his clearance, advocate B V Balram Das filed the appeal at 11.30 am in the SC registry with a request for urgent hearing. Acceding to the request, the hearing was fixed at 4.30 pm at the CJI's residence.
The high court's bench of justices I A Ansari and Justice Indira Shah on Wednesday had upheld the constitutional validity of DSPE Act, but ruled that "the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a 'police force' constituted under the DSPE Act".
Countering this logic, the DoPT cited five judgments of the Supreme Court, which had accepted that the CBI was set up under the DSPE Act, and said the HC could not have gone beyond the rulings of the highest court.
A bench of justices Sathasivam and Ranjana P Desai noticed the promptness with which accused in many cases involving serious offences, including the 2G spectrum scam, moved trial courts seeking a stay on the cases against them following the HC verdict. The apex court's interim order will ensure that the CBI carries on with its work. When the SC mentioned media reports about the accused seeking stay of trials, attorney general G E Vahanvati drove home the point by saying the HC judgment, if not stayed, would bring to a grinding halt 1,000 cases being investigated by the CBI and 9,000 trials currently underway.
The bench expressed prima facie doubts on the manner in which the 1963 resolution setting up the CBI had been drafted, but brushed aside minor objections put forth by advocate L S Chaudhury, counsel for Navendra Kumar - the petitioner before the HC - and stayed the judgment under challenge.
It asked Kumar to file a reply to the petition filed by department of personnel and training (DoPT) - the administrative ministry for the CBI - in two weeks and posted the matter for further hearing on December 6.
Vahanvati contended the division bench of the high court "asked wrong questions on wrong premises and proceeded on a completely wrong direction" and applied a "convoluted reasoning to arrive at a wrong conclusion that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act did not cover the CBI".
He added that the high court had overlooked Section 2 of DSPE Act which empowered the Centre to issue the Resolution in 1963 in the shape of an executive order to create the CBI, a special police force envisaged under the Act.
Immediately after the bench stayed the HC judgment, a buoyant Vahanvati walked out of the CJI's residence, where the hearing was held, and indulged the waiting TV cameras with a rare interaction over the case he successfully argued. Prior to the stay, CBI director Ranjit Sinha was heard saying, on a lighter note, that he was without a job.
In appealing against the HC verdict, DoPT acted with speed rare for the government. The decision to appeal against the verdict in the apex court on Saturday was taken on Friday evening after minister of state for personnel V Narayanswamy met the AG.
Within an hour, the task was assigned to a team of four lawyers led by advocate Devadatt Kamat, which worked through the night and handed over the final draft of the appeal to the AG at 6 am on Saturday. After his clearance, advocate B V Balram Das filed the appeal at 11.30 am in the SC registry with a request for urgent hearing. Acceding to the request, the hearing was fixed at 4.30 pm at the CJI's residence.
The high court's bench of justices I A Ansari and Justice Indira Shah on Wednesday had upheld the constitutional validity of DSPE Act, but ruled that "the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a 'police force' constituted under the DSPE Act".
Countering this logic, the DoPT cited five judgments of the Supreme Court, which had accepted that the CBI was set up under the DSPE Act, and said the HC could not have gone beyond the rulings of the highest court.
No comments:
Post a Comment