Difficult to attribute each change,the significant changes are8230;

THE MEETINGS

During the first week of February,a meeting was held in the chamber of the Minister for Law and Justice. This meeting was not called at the request of the CBI. The CBI articulated its view that filing an affidavit containing the status of the investigation could prejudice the integrity of the investigations8230; The minister and the attorney general shared the same viewpoint. The AG suggested that an application should be made for modification of the order and to place the report in a sealed cover. However,since the order was based on a statement by the ASG,it was decided that he would make a mention of this before the court. The status reports had not been prepared at that time.

The CBI had registered three preliminary enquiries and nine regular cases in the matter of allocation of captive coal blocks till March 6,2013. The draft status reports pertaining to each of these were submitted to the director,and approved by me on individual files between February 28 and March 48230; The CBI officers dealing with the matter showed all the drafts to ASG Harin P Raval and his assisting advocate,Satyakam,and in consultation with them worked on the drafts to put them in proper format8230;

On March 6,we were informed by the ASG that the Minister for Law and Justice wished to peruse the draft status reports at 12.30 pm. The draft reports were taken to the office of the minister. A copy of the draft pertaining to PE 2 abbreviation for allocations made during 2006 to 2009 was perused by him and he also made certain changes as explained in subsequent paragraphs. The ASG was present while the AG joined later. Neither of them had copies of the draft status reports and no amendments were suggested by them. The decision taken in the February meeting was reiterated,that the status reports would be placed in a sealed cover and a mention made by the ASG. Since the AG had to leave,the minister suggested that the status reports may be shown to the AG later.

The same afternoon,on receiving a message from the ASG,O P Galhotra CBI joint director and Ravikant DIG went to the residential office of the AG. I was not present. I was informed that the ASG was present. The AG glanced through portions of the status reports of PE 2 and PE 4 abbreviation for allocations made during 1993 to 2005. He made certain observations which were explained to him. He also suggested certain minor changes in the status report of PE 2. The AG neither asked for nor was given a copy of the final status seports that were submitter before this court.

The same evening,a meeting was held with Shatrughna Singh joint secretary,PMO and A K Bhalla joint secretary,coal ministry in O P Galhotas chamber at the request of Shatrughna Singh8230; Both these officials went through the draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4. The next day,they suggested amendments in a paragraph later numbered 1.21 of PE 2 and a paragraph later numbered 2.8 of PE 48230;

All the draft reports were then compiled after confirming their factual accuracy and proper formatting. The same were again placed before the CBI director,and finally vetted and approved by me on March 7 before filing in this court in a sealed cover.

The status reports pertaining to regular cases were seen neither by any political executive nor by the AG,or the above officials. The status report pertaining to allocations under government dispensation category was not seen by any of them. Only the draft status reports were shared. None of the status reports were shared with anyone other than the persons mentioned above.

POINT BY POINT

With respect to point No. i see box8230; the central theme of the status reports had not changed post meetings. There was no deletion of any evidence against any suspect or accused,nor were any let off. Since it was our belief that there was no specific direction on the issue by this court,it did not occur to us that the fact ought to be brought to the notice of this court8230;

With respect to point No. ii,the statement of the ASG that the status reports dated March 8 have not been shared with anyone and are meant only for the court was not made on the instructions of the CBI. The ASG had made the said statement during the hearing on March 12,on his own8230; The ASG himself was present in the meeting in the chamber of the minister on March 6. On the other hand,the senior-most officer of the CBI had not attended the meeting. Since the query by this court was spontaneous,the question of the CBI instructing the ASG did not arise.

With respect to point No. iii,certain changes in the drafts of the status reports of PE 2 and PE 4 were incorporated as mentioned above. It was initially intended that all the changes brought about would be submitted before this court in a sealed cover along with the affidavit. This however could not materialise due to procedural requirements. We were then advised by our special counsel that these details could be placed in a sealed cover during the hearing. This court allowed submission of sealed cover8230; and took the same on record on April 30.

…The original draft status reports of the two PEs initially approved by me and their final versions with changes highlighted have been filed in a sealed cover8230;

Based on the available documents,my officers have been able to identify the changes in the draft status reports of PE 2 and PE 4. The majority were done by my officers to refine the reports either on their own or in consultation with the ASG and his assisting advocate,or by the Minister for Law and Justice. Besides,a few changes were also done on the suggestion of the AG and officials of PMO and Ministry of Coal. It is difficult at this stage to attribute each change to a particular person with certainty. The changes which can be termed significant are elaborated in the following paragraph.

THE CHANGES

Significant changes would be seen in paragraphs 1.21 and 1.23 of the final status report pertaining to PE 2 and paragraph 2.8 of PE 4. From paragraph 1.21 of PE 2,the tentative finding about non-existence of a system regarding allocation of specific weightage/points was deleted at the instance of the officials of the PMO and the Ministry of Coal. The other tentative finding about non-preparation of broadsheets or charts by the screening committee,to the best of our recollection,was deleted by the Minister for Law. Since both these changes pertained to tentative findings of the CBI,which would be arrived at with further clarity on more enquiries,the same were acceptable. Further,from paragraph 1.23,deletion of a sentence about the scope of enquiry with respect to legality of allocation while the amendments in law were in process,was done by the Minister for aw8230; The change in paragraph 2.8 pertaining to PE 4 about non-existence of approved guidelines for allocation of coal blocks was incorporated at the instance of officials of the PMO and the Ministry of Coal,as the same was factually correct.

With respect to point No. iv,the names of officials of the PMO and the Ministry of Coal have been mentioned above.

SHARING PROCEDURE

With respect to point No. v,there is nothing in the CBI Crime Manual to guide whether status reports in respect of an ongoing investigation in a sub judice matter are to be shared with others. The departmental circulars and government instructions are silent on this point. In our institutional memory,too,no such general guidelines could be located. But,in writ petition Crl No. 340-43/93 Vineet Narain amp; Others Versus UOI amp; Another certain directions were passed vide an order dated March 1,1996,in respect of the Jain hawala case.

With respect to point No. vi,the names of the officers investigating the matter and the supervisory officers of branches are being submitted in a sealed cover.

Courts wish list

What the Supreme Court had wanted the affidavit to clarify

i Why in the status reports dated March 8,2013,no disclosure was made to the court that the draft report has been shared with the political executive and officials

ii What the basis and reasons were for the CBI in making the statement on March 12 through its counsel additional solicitor general that the status reports have not been shared with anyone and are meant only for the court

iii Whether or not changes were made in the draft report and,if yes,at whose instance and the extent of changes and whether it was shared with anyone other than those mentioned in an earlier affidavit April 26

iv The names of an officer each of the Prime Ministers Office and Ministry of Coal referred to in the earlier affidavit

vThe procedure being followed by the CBI under the manual/Ggidelines in sharing status reportss with regard to an ongoing investigation in a sub judice matter where these status reportss have been called for by the court

vi The names of the officers investigating the matter and their CVs