Premium

Opinion Why CBI should not have shown report to minister

Wednesday,when the Supreme Court takes up CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s affidavit on changes that he allowed the political executive

May 8, 2013 01:22 AM IST First published on: May 8, 2013 at 01:22 AM IST

Wednesday,when the Supreme Court takes up CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s affidavit on changes that he allowed the political executive and others to make in the crucial status report in the coal blocks allocation scam,his lawyer could have some explaining to do. For the nine-page affidavit doesn’t share information that could have a bearing on the politically sensitive case.

Also,while answering the questions posed by the Bench — upset at having been lied to when the CBI counsel claimed that the status report had not been shared with the political executive before it was filed in court in a sealed cover — the Director has given ambivalent answers.

Advertisement

Since the issue that has led to the ongoing controversy and stalling of Parliament is why he showed the status report to Law Minister Ashwani Kumar and allowed him to make changes,some of them “significant” by his own admission,let’s deal with only that.

His assertion that “there is nothing in the CBI (Crime) Manual to guide whether status reports in respect of ongoing investigation in sub-judice matters are to be shared with others” doesn’t stand scrutiny.

A cursory reading of the many SC judgments on the issue shows why he shouldn’t have shown the report to the Law Minister and others,leave aside allowing them to change it.

Advertisement

Investigations by any agency,including the CBI,are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and it has been held that in case of conflict between the CBI Manual and the CrPC,the CrPC prevails. In the Vineet Narain case,the SC held that while the Central government has overall superintendence of the CBI,it couldn’t be “construed in a wider sense to permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by the CBI”. Simply put: the Law Minister or anybody else had no business making changes to the status report.

In R Sarala versus T S Velu,the court has held that in no case is an investigating officer obliged “to take opinion of a public prosecutor or any authority,except the superior officer as envisaged in CrPC”.

Maneesh is a senior assistant editor based in New Delhi.

maneesh.chhibber@expressindia.com

Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Sandeep Dwivedi writesRohit Sharma will be 40 in 2027, same as Imran Khan in 1992; selectors shouldn't have fast-tracked Gill
X