The divestment of Alok Verma’s powers as CBI Director was not in accordance with the amended Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, said senior advocate Fali Nariman, appearing for Mr. Verma, in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

“The amended DSPE Act requires the government to take prior approval of the panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, before unsettling the CBI Director during his two-year statutory term,” argued Mr. Nariman. “This means Mr. Verma could not have been thrust out of his orbit without the panel's approval,” said the senior advocate.

The Supreme Court has begun hearing Mr. Verma’s petition challenging the Government Order dismissing him from his position as CBI Director on October 26, 2018.

“The post of the CBI Director is of fixed tenure. He was chosen by the highest panel led by the Prime Minister. The CBI Director shall not be transferred even if it is for his own benefit. The consent of the panel has to be taken first,” said Mr. Nariman. “The deprivation of his powers or divestment of powers as CBI Director on October 23 amounts to ‘transfer’ as meant in the DSPE Act,” he submitted. He also said the divestment was something far worse than a transfer.

In response, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said the court will primarily hear the point raised by Mr. Nariman as to whether the panel’s consent was mandatory before divesting Mr. Verma of his powers as CBI Director.

Media reporting

Mr. Nariman stated that the court can't prohibit media from reporting, but a 2012 verdict by J. Kapadia says publication could be postponed in public interest. He suggested that the court mould a rule to postpone media reporting in cases of scandalous allegations.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said he had serious reservations about Mr. Nariman’s advice. The CJI responded that the court does not intend to pass any orders.