LEGALLY SPEAKING - Apex court stands by a David who challenged the Goliath in CBI In the Biblical story, giant Goliath showed up at the Israelites doorstep for 40 successive days mocking their army and citizens. Everyone was terrified of him.A comparatively frail David, armed with a slingshot, accepted Goliaths challenge.He found a chink in the giants armour and sunk in the fatal shot before killing him. The story was repeated in the Supreme Court during the hearing of an application seeking to oust CBI chief Ranjit Sinha from the 2G spectrum scam investigation and prosecution. The petition cited a cache of internal file notings of CBI to highlight how Sinha was attempting to dilute the case against the accused. Instead of realizing his wrongdoings, Sinha fought back hard and dirty . He sought initiation of perjury proceedings against the petitioner and its counsel Prashant Bhushan. He also attempted to send a message down the CBI rank and file not to go against the chief even if he was doing something audaciously wrong attempting to help 2G scam ac cused and meeting `undesired persons at his official residence. Sinha told the court that he had identified the `mole who leaked inside information to Bhushan. He named a DIG rank officer to be the `mole. Contrary to expectations, the CBI threw its weight behind the David of an officer facing a `patently false charge from the Goliath of a CBI director. It challenged the director furnish evidence for the `mole comment or withdraw it. He refused to give proof. He probably had none. The sling shot got through Goliaths armour. Special public prosecutor Anand Grovers detailed analysis of the evidence against Sinha helped the SC see through the CBI chief s game. It ordered him to keep off the 2G scam case probe and prosecution. In administering this bitter medicine to Sinha, the SCs focus was to lift the agencys image that has been battered in the last decade by political executiveinduced flip-flops in probes against top political leaders. During hearing of the case on Thursday , the SC told the CBI directors counsel, “People still come to the courts to seek CBI investiga tion into cases. They still have faith in the organization.Think how you (the CBI director) can solve this problem.“ The CBI director had gone too far to back away . He had little choice between the fire and the frying pan. The court handed down the verdict. But in this entire episode, another important facet of criminal investigation and prosecution got highlighted the role of special public prosecutor. Given the list of influential people accused, one must admit the foresight of the bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi in appointing senior advocate U U Lalit (now an Supreme Court judge) as special public prosecutor. Lalit saved the day , in painstakingly investigated 2G cases, by standing firm against the CBI directors relentless attempts to dilute it.Lalits actions took independence of public prosecutor to a different level. His successor Anand Grover maintained the high ground by fearlessly telling the apex body where the CBI director went wrong. In the process, both gave credence to the long-standing demand for complete separation of prosecution from the investigating wing. A small yet irritatingly persistent question keeps wafting into mind Was the Centre oblivious to Sinhas doings as head of the countrys premier investigating agency? If it actually was, then something is seriously wrong with its `eyes and ears, which any government must keep wide open for providing good governance. But if it was aware and yet did nothing to rein in the CBI chief, it becomes even more serious. It would reflect on the governments lack of intent to punish wrongdoers, especially those in high positions to influence sensitive cases involving influential persons . Now that Sinha is retiring in a few days, the BJP government must redeem itself and the CBI by choosing a director among officers who can redeem CBIs character. The new CBI chief will play a crucial role to chart out the agencys future course, whether the `caged parrot will fairly investigate every wrongdoer irrespective of his political strength or power of wealth. The new CBI chief and the government must dispel the apprehensions expressed in SCs December 18, 1997 judgment in Vineet Narain case. It had said, “Everyone against whom there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime has to be treated equally and similarly under the law and probity in public life is of great significance. The constitution and working of investigating agencies revealed the lacuna of its inability to perform whenever powerful persons were involved.“
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 06:56:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015