HC orders CBI probe into gutkha business

Observing that the thriving underground gutkha business is a crime against society and it has to be curbed at any cost, the Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into illegal manufacture, import, supply, distribution and sale of gutkha and other forms of chewable tobacco which had been banned in the State as well as in the Union Territory of Puducherry.

The alleged gutkha scam, which was unearthed during an Income Tax Department search on the premises of a leading gutkha manufacturer in Chennai and reported first by The Hindu in June last, was being investigated by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

Following the court verdict, opposition leaders led by DMK’s M.K. Stalin demanded the resignation of Health Minister C. Vijaya Baskar and the Director General of Police T.K. Rajendran, who they said were among those suspected to have received bribes from the gutkha manufacturer. While Mr. Baskar rejected the demand, the DGP met Chief Secretary Girija Vaidyananathan at the Secretariat soon after the court ruling.

Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose issued the direction on a public interest litigation petition filed by DMK MLA J. Anbazhagan seeking constitution of a special investigation team headed by a retired High Court judge to probe the issue. However, during the course of arguments, senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the petitioner, had confined his prayer to a CBI probe.

The Home Secretary-cum-State Vigilance Commissioner had contended that the petition was politically motivated. However, the judges said: “Though the public interest litigant is a member of the DMK, a political opponent of the ruling party... he has sought investigation into the illegal gutkha business operating through several States, including Tamil Nadu, and involving different functionaries cutting across political parties of different States.

“This court cannot shut its eyes to the illegality. The court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of the people... The unabated sale of gutkha and other forms of chewable tobacco adversely affecting the health of the community is a matter which calls for interference of this court.” They also cited an observation of the Supreme Court that political opponents were the watchdogs of the government in power.

However, not wanting to go into the correctness of the allegations of involvement of Ministers and top police officers in the crime, the Division Bench said the illegal business of manufacture and sale of gutkha spread over different States in the country “would perhaps not be possible but for the involvement of different officials and functionaries of the central government and different State governments including the State of Tamil Nadu.”

Since it was an organised crime with inter-State ramifications and also because serious allegations against top police officers with regard to their complicity in the illegal business of gutkha had been levelled thereby giving rise to doubts in the minds of people with regard to fair and impartial probe, the judges felt that it would be appropriate for a centralised investigation agency such as the CBI to probe the issue with the assistance of the State police.

“In our considered view, the handing over of investigation to the CBI only ensures a coordinated investigation. It neither casts any aspersion on the mode and manner of investigation conducted by the State police or the State vigilance authorities nor does it necessarily reflect any finding, even prima facie, of interference of any constitutional authority or any high official of the State government in such investigation,” the Bench clarified.

Authoring the judgment, the Chief Justice went a step further to state: “We see no reason for the State to view the entrustment of the investigation to the CBI as an affront to the efficiency or efficacy of its own investigation system, and we make it absolutely clear that this direction is not to be construed as any definite finding of this court of the complicity of any constitutional functionary or of any specific official of the State government.”