New Delhi: In a slap on the wrists for interfering in the affairs of the CBI, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated its Director Alok Kumar Verma. However, he has to wait for a week before he can exercise his full powers – that is, until the decision of the 3-member selection committee of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge in the matter.
Until then he would perform only “routine’’ functions without taking any fresh initiative or major policy decision having institutional implication, the court held. But the court was categorical that the government had no jurisdictional power to divest him from the post, without the consent of the selection committee.
said: “The legislative intent in shielding and insulating the office of the Director from any kind of extraneous influence has been foremost in the mind of Parliament.” If now the committee rules in his favour, say by January 15, Verma will have just a fortnight before his retirement.
The Congress has claimed Verma was summarily removed to stop him from registering a case of corruption in the Rafale fighter aircraft deal. That was why defence ministry files were removed from his office in the midnight drama on October 23, it is claimed. It, of course, remains to be seen what he will do now in the 15-day window he gets before retirement, if the committee restores his full powers.
The 44-page judgment was written by CJI Ranjan Gogoi but pronounced in the court by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, since the former is on leave. The verdict by the 3-judge Bench, which included Justice K M Joseph, quashed orders of the government on October 23 divesting Verma of powers, and negated the same day order asking Joint Director M Nageshwar Rao to look after the duties and functions of the director.
As regards the consequential transfers, etc., the court left it to the concerned officers to challenge them before an appropriate forum. It also directed convening of the meeting of the selection committee to decide actions on the reinstated CBI director “at the earliest and, in any case, within a week from the date of this order.”
The court noted that “the institution of the CBI has to be necessarily kept away from all kinds of extraneous influence to perform its role as the premier investigating and prosecuting agency without any fear and favour and in the best public interest.”
The head of the institution, namely the Director, ‘‘naturally, therefore, has to be the role model of independence and integrity which can only be ensured by freedom from all kinds of control and interference, except to the extent ,that Parliament may have intended.”
“This, in our considered view, would require all authorities to keep away from, intermingling or interfering in the function of the Director.” However, if the interference becomes necessary in “public interest,” the court said the relevance and adequacy of the reasons giving rise to such a compelling necessity can only be tested by the opinion of the committee