NEW DELHI: The CBI, which was dubbed "caged parrot" by the Supreme Court not long ago, showed remarkable assertiveness on Thursday as it locked horns with the Centre over whether it needed government's prior permission to question bureaucrats even in court-monitored investigations.
While the agency was vehement in its submission before a bench of Justice RM Lodha, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph that prior permission was not required in court-monitored investigations, the Centre was firm that it was needed to protect honest bureaucrats from harassment.
Section 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act mandatesCBI to take permission of the competent authority before launching inquiry against bureaucrats of joint secretary rank and above.
Appearing for the agency, senior advocate Amarendra Saran said asking the agency to adhere to Section 6A to probe a top bureaucrat would actually be an affront to the SC.
"The Supreme Court as the highest constitutional court of the country is the guardian of the rights of the citizens. There is no reason for the government to apprehend that the court will not protect the rights of honest bureaucrats against harassment during a court-monitored probe," Saran said and found the court in agreement with him.
He said requirement of Section 6A was also redundant when it came to inquiring against top bureaucrats in court-directed investigations into specific offences.
But he added a caveat and said if CBI discovered another offence, while investigating the offence directed to be probed by the court, and if evidence emerged against a top bureaucrat in that new offence, the agency has to seek permission before inquiring against the official concerned.
Attorney general GE Vahanvati, who was facing disagreement from the CBI counsel on every step, seized the opportunity and accused the agency of swaying from one stand to the other and alleged that the agency was now changing its stand.
Saran said there was no change of stand and shot back at the AG, "The Centre loves only caged parrots." The 'caged parrot' remark was used by the Supreme Court during an earlier hearing when it had raised a question mark over the independence and autonomy of CBI while investigating politically sensitive cases.
The CBI said allowing operation of Section 6A in court-monitored cases would imply that "a constitutional court has power only to monitor the investigation of an offence relating to the officers below the rank of joint secretary and such constitutional court would not have any power to monitor investigation of an offence involving officers of the rank of joint secretary and above without prior permission of central government".
Vahanvati challenged the CBI to cite even a single example where its request for permission to inquire a top bureaucrat had been refused in the coal scam case. The AG said it was a safeguard through which the competent authority would take into account the view of the other side to ensure that an honest officer did not face frivolous inquiry.
He said a constitution bench of the apex court had ruled that judges of the higher judiciary were public servants and yet provided for prior permission from the Chief Justice of India before an inquiry against any judge. The AG cited the provident fund scam case and said though several judges were involved, CBI had to await the CJI's consent before proceeding against them.
The bench asked, "Why are you all the time comparing the judge's office to that of bureaucrats when it comes to Section 6A?" Another petitioner Common Cause's counsel Prashant Bhushan said in states, there was no protection akin to Section 6A and state police was free to investigate any bureaucrat.
The bench said, "Judges hold constitutional office. Independence of judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution and it has to be maintained at all costs. That is not so for bureaucracy."
The arguments will continue on September 10.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment