Fodder ghost is back to haunt Laloo

In the two IT cases, the Centre suddenly transferred in June the head of the Patna bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while it was hearing the appeals of Yadav and Rabri Devi. And as a replacement, sent Finance Ministry official P Mohan Rajan to head the bench when he was on the verge of retirement.

On July 2, the ITAT bench headed by Rajan did not just decide the cases in favour of Rabri Devi and Yadav but he also passed politically charged strictures on the officers below for acting against them.

In Rabri Devi’s case, Rajan observed that the conduct of the officers showed that ‘‘they were out to destroy the assessee’s explanations, whatever they were, and in that process destroy the political career of her husband.’’

Similarly, in Laloo’s case, Rajan said that the IT officers had behaved as if they were acting under ‘‘pressure from extraneous sources like media and public opinion which were orchestrating a crusade against the assessee at the relevant time.’’

Another major ground on which the petition sought cancellation of bail to Yadav and Rabri Devi is the equally sudden removal in July of the special prosecutor, L R Ansari, who has already examined over 150 witnesses in the main fodder case in Patna.

The petition contained a letter the CBI wrote to the Ministry of Personnel on July 20 requesting the inclusion of one Oma Shankar Sharma, a retired police officer in Delhi with experience of barely five years in the legal profession, in the CBI panel of advocates.

A week later, on July 27, the Ministry of Personnel conveyed its acceptance for Sharma’s appointment as a ‘‘panel senior special counsel for CBI cases for Delhi, Jharkhand and Bihar.’’

In view of the sudden transfers of key functionaries in those politically sensitive cases, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S N Variava and Justice H K Sema today issued notices to Yadav and Rabri Devi as well as the Centre and CBI.

The respondents have been directed to file their replies in two weeks.

The petitioners, BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi and JD(U) MP Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’, sought to establish their bona fides by pointing out that they had filed the first PIL before the Patna high court seeking probe into the fodder scam. Their counsel, Mukul Rohatgi, alleged that the Railway Minister had ‘‘misused’’ his clout in the new coalition Government to ‘‘thwart the judicial process and subvert the trial’’ in the cases against him and his wife.