Centre seeks dismissal of PIL against ex-Mumbai police chief’s appointment as CBI director

The affidavit filed by Union Government through Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia, Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pensions on behalf of the DoPT and CBI, stated that as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPEA), a superintendent of police at district level can register and investigate offences under the PCA.

It added that Jaiswal had been superintendent of three districts, the Commissioner of Mumbai Police, which is the biggest commissionerate of the country, and the Director General of Police for Maharashtra before being appointed as CBI director.

The government said that as per DSPEA, anti-corruption cases also included other offences, including economic offences, corporate crimes, white collar crimes etc, and therefore, it was erroneous on the part of petitioner to allege that Jaiswal did not have required experience of probing and overseeing anti-corruption cases.

The reply further said that Jaiswal was selected as per due seniority and there was nothing to indicate any pending complaint or court case pending against him. Therefore, contentions in PIL were “devoid of merits” and were “entitled to be dismissed”, it added.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta has been hearing the plea argued through advocates S B Talekar and Madhavi Ayyappan which claimed that Jaiswal’s appointment was in contravention of the DPEA. It sought direction to seek call records and proceedings of the committee that had cleared Jaiswal’s name as a candidate in May 2021.

The plea had stated that Jaiswal, before being appointed as the CBI director, was never part of any agency which investigated anti-corruption cases. Advocate Talekar pointed out an order by the magistrate court, which had issued proceedings against Jaiswal on a defamation complaint in 2012, and said the same was not placed before the committee which had appointed the CBI director.

Trivedi further referred to observations by the Supreme Court and a trial court on Jaiswal’s conduct during the probe of the fake and counterfeit stamp paper “scam”, known as the Telgi scam. The plea said the same raised questions over Jaiswal’s integrity and, therefore, pending the hearing on the plea, he should be restrained from officiating as the CBI director.

Jaiswal had recently submitted an affidavit in the HC claiming that the PIL was filed out of sheer vendetta and vengeance, and with a personal grudge against him. Jaiswal said Trivedi held a “personal grudge” against him over his postings and also due to a “default report” that he had sent based on which a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the former ACP by the state Home Department.

Trivedi filed a rejoinder to the Central government’s affidavit claiming that it cannot file a common affidavit on behalf of the CBI as the agency was made a separate party to the case through its director and that there was possibility of Jaiswal’s influence over the agency. He alleged that the Centre filed a reply almost on the lines of Jaiswal’s affidavit without any non-partisan approach and that the respondent central authorities “have crossed the line of impartiality, that is Lakshman Rekha expected of them.”

Trivedi said Maharashtra has an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), a special wing assigned with cases related to corruption, where regular police officers do not work on such cases. Therefore, the respondents’ claims did not make out a case for dismissal, he added. HC is likely to hear the plea on Thursday.