House panel ignores SC rulings on CBI lapses
Vishwa Mohan |TNN | Dec 11, 2011, 03.09AM IST
NEW DELHI: Parliament's standing committee, examining the Lokpal bill, has ignored several observations made by the Supreme Court against the functioning of the CBI. Two key apex court judgments were highlighted by noted lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP Ram Jethmalani in his dissent note to the panel, while arguing for the investigating agency to be given autonomy.
Jethmalani made a strong case for CBI being rescued from the "infamy" of kowtowing to political directives by pointing out instances - ranging from the Bofors case to the targeting of an honest official at the behest of powerful Goa politicians - to underline how the agency is at the mercy of its political bosses.
The first SC judgment, referred to by the Rajya Sabha MP, had come in 1996 in the case of killing of Goa PWD minister Churchill Alemao's elder brother Alvarnaz, who was allegedly involved in major smuggling racket. Alvarnaz was killed in a scuffle with Custom officer Costao Fernandez when he was trying to flee. Fernandez had also sustained severe injuries while discharging his duty.
Though the Custom department held the Alemao's brother guilty of smuggling huge amount of contraband in Goa, the CBI had, instead, during its probe charged Fernandez under Section 302 (murder), while taking lenient view of the offence of the politically connected brothers. The charge was, however, quashed by the SC in 1996. The apex court had noted that how the CBI defaulted in its probe because the deceased (the smuggler) was "no ordinary mortal" (brother of erstwhile Goa CM).
The second apex court judgment, highlighted by Jethmalani, had come in the Mukta Panna oil-field case. The SC in 2000 had passed severe strictures on the CBI for omission of an important file that contained recommendations of an officer of the agency for registering an FIR against a big firm and conducting raids at its premises.
Pitching for CBI's independence, the Rajya Sabha MP has referred to these two judgments in his dissent note and said: "My experience convinces me that the CBI has got to be rescued from this infamy and the nation saved from the grave consequences of its misdeeds. The present system of supervision has become hopelessly inadequate and much more effective one has to be imposed upon it".
Referring to the Bofors case, Jethmalani pointed out that the Malaysian Court had refused India's request for extradition of Quattrocchi because "the CBI did not carry out the simple request of the Judge to supply him with a summary of implicating evidence" against the Italian businessman. This episode had, however, happened when NDA was in power at the Centre.
He wished that the appointment of the CBI director and officers of equivalent status should be totally insulated from government's interference or influence. His argument clearly drew home a point that had the agency chief been independent from government's control, such a biased action would not have happened in the first place like the cases he referred to.
He said that CBI continued to be used by the government of the day for their own ``political purposes''. In his dissent note, Jethmalani said, ``The report proposes that the CBI be the main anti-corruption agency and that it be left to the administrative control of the Lokpal in the same manner in which the CVC currently has that supervisory jurisdiction. This would be totally unsatisfactory and would leave the CBI under the control of the government through its power of postings, transfer, promotions and disciplinary control. Using these powers the governments of the day have been misusing the CBI for their own political purposes despite the supervisory jurisdiction of the CVC.''.......http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQ0gvMjAxMS8xMi8xMSNBcjAxMTAw&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom
Vishwa Mohan |TNN | Dec 11, 2011, 03.09AM IST
NEW DELHI: Parliament's standing committee, examining the Lokpal bill, has ignored several observations made by the Supreme Court against the functioning of the CBI. Two key apex court judgments were highlighted by noted lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP Ram Jethmalani in his dissent note to the panel, while arguing for the investigating agency to be given autonomy.
Jethmalani made a strong case for CBI being rescued from the "infamy" of kowtowing to political directives by pointing out instances - ranging from the Bofors case to the targeting of an honest official at the behest of powerful Goa politicians - to underline how the agency is at the mercy of its political bosses.
The first SC judgment, referred to by the Rajya Sabha MP, had come in 1996 in the case of killing of Goa PWD minister Churchill Alemao's elder brother Alvarnaz, who was allegedly involved in major smuggling racket. Alvarnaz was killed in a scuffle with Custom officer Costao Fernandez when he was trying to flee. Fernandez had also sustained severe injuries while discharging his duty.
Though the Custom department held the Alemao's brother guilty of smuggling huge amount of contraband in Goa, the CBI had, instead, during its probe charged Fernandez under Section 302 (murder), while taking lenient view of the offence of the politically connected brothers. The charge was, however, quashed by the SC in 1996. The apex court had noted that how the CBI defaulted in its probe because the deceased (the smuggler) was "no ordinary mortal" (brother of erstwhile Goa CM).
The second apex court judgment, highlighted by Jethmalani, had come in the Mukta Panna oil-field case. The SC in 2000 had passed severe strictures on the CBI for omission of an important file that contained recommendations of an officer of the agency for registering an FIR against a big firm and conducting raids at its premises.
Pitching for CBI's independence, the Rajya Sabha MP has referred to these two judgments in his dissent note and said: "My experience convinces me that the CBI has got to be rescued from this infamy and the nation saved from the grave consequences of its misdeeds. The present system of supervision has become hopelessly inadequate and much more effective one has to be imposed upon it".
Referring to the Bofors case, Jethmalani pointed out that the Malaysian Court had refused India's request for extradition of Quattrocchi because "the CBI did not carry out the simple request of the Judge to supply him with a summary of implicating evidence" against the Italian businessman. This episode had, however, happened when NDA was in power at the Centre.
He wished that the appointment of the CBI director and officers of equivalent status should be totally insulated from government's interference or influence. His argument clearly drew home a point that had the agency chief been independent from government's control, such a biased action would not have happened in the first place like the cases he referred to.
He said that CBI continued to be used by the government of the day for their own ``political purposes''. In his dissent note, Jethmalani said, ``The report proposes that the CBI be the main anti-corruption agency and that it be left to the administrative control of the Lokpal in the same manner in which the CVC currently has that supervisory jurisdiction. This would be totally unsatisfactory and would leave the CBI under the control of the government through its power of postings, transfer, promotions and disciplinary control. Using these powers the governments of the day have been misusing the CBI for their own political purposes despite the supervisory jurisdiction of the CVC.''.......http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQ0gvMjAxMS8xMi8xMSNBcjAxMTAw&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom
No comments:
Post a Comment