Premium
This is an archive article published on September 15, 2011

CBI attacks ex-law minister of ‘unilaterally’ denying sanction to prosecute Yadav

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday attacked the then law minister of acting “unilaterally” and “deliberately” for not taking the matter of sanction to prosecute Justice (retd) Nirmal Yadav before the prime minister and the President in the bribery case.

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday attacked the then law minister of acting “unilaterally” and “deliberately” for not taking the matter of sanction to prosecute Justice (retd) Nirmal Yadav before the prime minister and the President in the bribery case. Also,the CBI challenged the validity of December 7,2009 letter issued by the then law secretary,D R Meena.

Anupam Gupta,special public prosecutor for CBI,said the then Union law minister “not only acted in breach of the Constitution but also of principles of democratic responsibilities and proprieties by acting on his own without taking the matter to the council of ministers headed by prime minister”.

He said the law minister “subverted the process of decision making from within”.

Story continues below this ad

During the resumed hearing of the petition filed by Justice (retd) Yadav seeking quashing of the chargesheet against her in the bribery case,Gupta said the law secretary’s letter declining sanction to prosecute Yadav was issued in “violation of rules of business and Constitution”.

The letter addressed to the CBI director also referred to the legal opinion given by the then attorney general,who had expressed his view that “there is not even a shred of evidence against the accused in the case”.

Gupta said the letter can neither be construed as a decision nor as an order,adding it raised three questions.

Firstly,whether it is an order or decision by the law minister. Secondly,whether can it be said to be an order from the President. Lastly,whether the letter can be construed as an order from the chief justice of India declining sanction.

Story continues below this ad

Stating that the answer to all the three questions is in the negative,Gupta said the letter leaves one in the dark as to what kind of consultation,if at all it did,took place between the then law minister and the chief justice of India ,and also whether it took place orally or in writing.

“Whether the consultation,if at all it took place,was face-to-face or on telephone.” Also,the nature and extent of such “consultation” is not clear,he said.

Gupta referred to various Supreme Court judgments from 1958 to 2010 with regard to Rules of Business under Article 77 and 166 of the Constitution.

Gupta said that for the letter to be treated as sanction,a positive refusal was required,which it was not. He said the sanction to prosecute Justice Yadav in the bribery case has been granted by the sanctioning authority after due application of mind.

Story continues below this ad

Denying allegations of mala fide levelled against CBI,Gupta said the agency was never vindictive or overzealous in investigating the case.

Gupta said the previous investigation report prepared by the CBI has not been dressed up to chargesheet Yadav.

Meanwhile,just when the case was about to begin,a lawyer on behalf of Yadav requested the court to direct media not to “distort the facts”. Justice Permod Kohli asked the counsel to file an application in writing to this effect.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement