The Hindu : Front Page : Verdict reserved on Swamy's plea

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Oct 14, 2004

Front Page

Front Page

Verdict reserved on Swamy's plea

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, OCT. 13. The Supreme Court today reserved the verdict on a petition seeking to quash the "single directive" in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 under which the Central Bureau of Investigation is required to take the Centre's approval for taking up any inquiry or investigation against senior bureaucrats.

A three-Judge Bench, comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Justice Tarun Chatterji, reserved the judgment at the conclusion of arguments from senior counsel Anil Divan, amicus curiae in the petition filed by the Janata Party president, Subramanian Swamy, and the Solicitor-General, G.E. Vahanvati, for the Centre.

Mr. Divan submitted that the Supreme Court in the "Vineet Narain case" had struck down the "single directive" but the same was restored in the CVC Act. Through Section 26 (c), certain amendments were made to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by inserting a new section, Section 6 A. (The CBI was constituted under this Act). The CBI had been investigating cases without any impediment of prior sanction since December 18, 1997 when the apex court delivered its judgment.

He said the present proceedings were inter-connected with the "Vineet Narain case" and formed part of a continuing mandamus to monitor and ensure independent, unbiased and unhindered investigation and enforcement of law by the investigative agency. The amendments to the CVC Act had revived the core provisions of the "single directive" by which the CBI could not even embark on an inquiry or investigation without the approval of the Central Government in relation to certain top bureaucrats above the rank of Joint Secretaries. Though these provisions were not incorporated in the CVC Bill 1999, they found a place in the 2003 Act.

Mr. Divan argued that by incorporating these provisions there was no confidentiality and insulation of the investigative agency from political and bureaucratic control and influence because the approval of the Central Government would involve leaks and disclosures at every stage.

The criminal-bureaucrat-politician nexus, that was subverting the whole polity, would be involved in granting or refusing prior approval before an inquiry or investigation could take place.

`False complaints'

The Solicitor-General said the amendment was necessary, as bureaucrats had been the victims of false and frivolous complaints. Senior officials occupying key positions were required to discharge their functions independently and fearlessly and hence they need to be protected from arbitrary complaints.

The premise that Section 6 A of the CVC Act would have the effect of thwarting investigation proceeded on the assumption that the heads of departments would act arbitrarily and have extraneous consideration in all cases.

The allegation that the CVC Act attempted to protect errant members of the bureaucracy was wrong. Parliament had taken into consideration the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee while introducing the amendment and the Bill was passed after a full debate, he said and sought dismissal of the petition.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section

55 p.c. polling in Maharashtra

New food-for-work scheme gets nod

Chidambaram justifies need for more FDI in telecom

3 killed in U.P. poll violence

Indians have to look forward

Use funds fully for mid-day meals, court tells States

Verdict reserved on Swamy's plea

Sharmila replaces Anupam Kher

TCS second quarter net up 52 per cent at Rs. 342 crores