A three-judge Supreme Court Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will on January 8 scheduled to pronounce judgment on a petition filed by exiled CBI Director Alok Verma against his “overnight” removal from the post.
The Bench, which also comprises Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph, on December 6, 2018 reserved the order on Mr. Verma’s petition and another filed by NGO Common Cause.
On the last day of hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi quizzed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), about the hurry to divest Mr. Verma of his powers “overnight” on October 23.
The enquiry against Mr. Verma was based on a complaint of misconduct filed by CBI Special Director R.K. Asthana with the Cabinet Secretary on August 24 in the background of a bitter feud between the two. Mr. Asthana's complaint ultimately led to Mr. Verma’s divestment of his powers on the intervening night of October 23-24. Mr. Asthana was also exiled the same day.
'Result of an extraordinary situation'
Mr. Mehta had countered by terming the sudden action a result of an extraordinary situation. “Two senior-most CBI officers [Mr. Verma and Mr. Asthana] had turned against each other. Instead of probing cases, they were raiding each other, registering FIRs against each other. They may tamper evidence. This was a surprise situation!” Mr. Mehta had responded to the CJI.
The court had repeatedly asked why neither the CVC nor the government chose to take prior approval from the high-powered committee led by the Prime Minister before divesting Mr. Verma of his powers before the end of his statutory two-year tenure.
The government and the CVC had vehemently argued that there was no need to consult the Prime Minister's panel.
The court had indicated that the government and the CVC had not come out with a reason for not consulting the panel before removing Mr. Verma.
The Chief Justice had questioned the ambit of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which controls the CBI’s functioning. It said the CVC’s superintendence over the CBI was restricted to only probes in corruption cases.
Can the CVC go beyond Section 4 of the DSPE Act? the Chief Justice asked on the last day of hearing.
Mr. Mehta had argued that Mr. Verma’s divestment of his powers did not amount to a ‘transfer’. “The word 'transfer' would mean a person is divested permanently from one place and invested permanently in an equivalent position in another place... On October 23, considering the seriousness of the allegations, we decided to do something [divestment], which was less than a transfer," he submitted.