String tightens on puppet masters

R. BALAJI

New Delhi, April 30: The Supreme Court today vowed to "liberate" the CBI from its political master, leaving the Centre squirming and reviving a debate on the need to insulate the official machinery from those wielding executive power. The immediate focus was on the fate of Union law minister Ashwani Kumar after the court suggested that the CBI's move to share the coal allocation status report with the government has "shaken" the very foundation of an independent investigation. The government reserved a response till the verdict, saying the court's comments were "observations". The court is scheduled to take up the case again on May 8, two days before which the CBI has been asked to submit answers to six specific questions that seek to get to the bottom of the report vetting. "I have not studied the Supreme Court's observations. Whatever action is called for will be taken after studying it," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told reporters amid a clamour for the law minister's resignation and reports of divisions within the Congress on the timing of Kumar's possible exit. The controversy has already scalped its first victim with additional solicitor-general Harin Raval stepping down after complaining against attorney-general G.E. Vahanvati. Raval felt that he was being made a scapegoat for filing a report that claimed no political executive was shown the coal status report. The thrust of the court's observations brought to the fore the need for the CBI's independence — an unfulfilled objective that crystallised 15 years ago and something that would find resonance in states like Bengal where law enforcement and investigating agencies are often used by the political leadership to settle scores. The three-judge bench said it would pass orders to free the CBI from the shackles of government interference. "The first thing we have to do is to liberate CBI from extraneous considerations," the court said. "You have to be independent, unbiased and you don't have to take any instruction from the political master. In fact, you are your own master," said Justice R.M. Lodha, heading the bench. The other judges are Justices Madan B. Lokur and Kurien Joseph. The bench noted that the apex court had issued a series of directives to insulate the investigating agency from political or executive interference in 1997 in the Jain hawala case that pitted the Union of India against Vineet Narain. The sharing of the report was a "complete breach" of those directives, the court added. The action of the CBI and Raval in misleading the court on sharing the contents of the status report with the "political executive" was a "complete erosion of the trust reposed" on the agency by the court, the bench added. The court asked attorney-general Vahanvati to explain why the Union coal ministry was not extending any co-operation to the CBI as alleged by the agency in its latest status report of April 26. The two-hour proceedings saw the court expressing deep anguish at the manner in which it had been taken for a ride by Raval, the CBI and the Centre on different counts. As soon as the case came up for hearing, Justice Lodha told senior counsel U.U. Lalit, appearing for the CBI from today instead of Raval: "The recent events are very, very disturbing. The question is what was the occasion to share the status report with anyone? Does it have any statutory requirement? It is a total erosion of faith that this court has reposed in you (the CBI). "Now the question is that the very foundation of independent investigation has been shaken. We want the investigating agency to enhance its credibility and independence. It is not that you have to move like the crutches of the executive. "Your conduct has shaken the entire investigation process. You have to now tell us why on March 8 this court was not informed that the details were shared. Does it not amount to suppression of vital facts of information?" Lalit, attorney-general Vahanvati and solicitor-general Mohan Parasaran remained silent. The court then said: "We had passed the order to explain whether the report has been shared or not because we had a lurking suspicion that there may be some interference. It is a very disturbing situation. "…We have no doubt that the government has administrative control over CBI but it was said before this court in unequivocal and emphatic terms that this investigation would be independent. As an investigator you know your role. You are the master." The court pointed out that the complexion would have changed had truth been told earlier. "Looking from a different angle had that (truth) been told to us, the very consideration would have been different. How do we proceed when you have interference from left, right, above or below! This suppression is not ordinary; it is deliberate, intentional," the bench observed. The court wondered what it would do if a premier agency like the CBI behaved in such a manner. "In regular work, if there is a shoddy job done by lower investigative rung, we call upon the CBI. But if the CBI is seen to be doing a shoddy job and is being partial, what do we do? How do we move from this?" the bench asked. The apex court made the observations while dealing with a PIL. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130501/jsp/frontpage/story_16847566.jsp#.UYKMTqKBlA0