Order
1. At the outset, Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today, submitted that it would be better if some other counsel appears on behalf of CBI. In this view of the matter, we defer the consideration of applications being Crl. MPs Nos. 14091-92 of 2013 made by CBI to enable it to make alternative arrangement. These applications may be posted for consideration on 17-7-2013 at 2 p.m
2. Pursuant to our order of 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703 by which we wanted to know from the learned Attorney General whether the Central Government intended to put in place an appropriate law for the independence of CBI and its functional autonomy and insulate it from extraneous influence(s) of any kind so that CBI is viewed as a non-partisan investigating agency, an affidavit has been filed by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India on 3-7-2013. In the affidavit, various actions which were taken in compliance with the directions of this Court in Vineet Narain (1998) 1 SCC 226 have been indicated. It is also stated that in view of the order of 8-5-2013 (2014) 2 SCC 703, a Group of Ministers (GoM) was constituted to consider the matter and to prepare the draft affidavit to be filed before this Court.
3. The details of the amendments in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short “the DSPE Act”) proposed by the GoM and approved by the Cabinet have been indicated in the affidavit. The proposed amendments are principally under six heads:
(i) Appointment of Director and other officers;
(ii) Non-interference in investigation;
(iii) Time-limit for sanctions;
(iv) Directorate of Prosecution;
(v) Accountability Commission; and
(vi) Financial Autonomy.
4. The amendments as proposed in the DSPE Act are likely to take some time since the Bill in that regard shall be introduced by the Central Government in Parliament which shall then be considered by both the Houses. Our immediate concern is that until that happens, it has to be ensured that the investigations entrusted to CBI are conducted in a non-partisan manner and such investigations are not influenced by extraneous influence(s) of any kind. In this backdrop, we wanted to know from the learned Attorney General as to why clarification should not be made that sanction from the Government for investigation of the offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not necessary as it is the stand of the Government that the power of supervision for investigation has already been shifted from the Government to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). We also wanted to know from the learned Attorney General as to why sanction of the Government is necessary in respect of “Court-monitored” or “Court-directed” investigations. This query was put to the learned Attorney General as we were informed of the categorical stand taken by CBI before the High Court of Delhi in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India WP (C) No. 11550 of 2009 in which the counsel for CBI submitted before that Court that as the investigation was directed by the Court, grant of approval/permission was not necessary under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act.
5. The learned Attorney General prays for some time to respond to the above queries. We shall consider the above aspects on 17-7-2013.
6. It is appropriate that we have the response of CBI as well in respect of the amendments in the DPSE Act proposed by the GoM and approved by the Cabinet. CBI may file its response to the above by 16-7-2013.
7. In continuation of earlier status reports, further status reports pertaining to the three preliminary enquiries and thirteen regular cases have been filed by CBI. The same are taken on record. Registry shall keep these reports in a sealed cover.
8. In the course of hearing, the learned Attorney General submitted that in the counter-affidavits filed so far, the Union of India has focused on the six queries raised by the Court on 14-9-2012 (2014) 3 SCC 163 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 120 of 2012 filed by Manohar Lal Sharma. He submitted that 132 coal blocks were allocated in 36 meetings of the Screening Committee and 72 coal blocks were allocated under government dispensation route. Of these 204 allocations, 40 coal blocks have been deallocated. He sought some time to enable the Union of India to file appropriate counter-affidavit justifying allocation of the remaining 164 coal blocks.
9. We grant four weeks' time to the Union of India to file further counter-affidavit concerning allocation of 164 coal blocks.
Court Masters