Additional Director Nageshwar Rao was appointed as interim director after Alok Verma was removed as the chief of the agency on charges of corruption and dereliction of duty. (Express Photo by Prem Nath Pandey)The appointment of Nageshwar Rao as the CBI’s Interim Director has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The petition, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan on Monday on behalf of NGO Common Cause, said the “Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, provides for the appointment of the CBI, Director by a high-powered selection committee which does not have a preponderance of the government and its representatives. The committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India or any Judge of Supreme Court nominated by him”.
The NGO has contended that “it appears that this particular committee has been completely bypassed by the Union of India, which has arbitrarily and without any jurisdiction appointed Shri Nageshwar Rao as Interim Director, CBI on January 10, 2019”.
Additional Director Rao was appointed as interim director after Alok Verma was removed as the chief of the agency on charges of corruption and dereliction of duty.
The NGO’s petition said the appointment “was apparently not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee”.
It said, “The order dated January 10, 2019 states that the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet has approved the appointment of Shri Nageshwar Rao ‘as per the earlier arrangement’. However, this earlier arrangement, i.e. order dated October 23, 2018 making Shri Nageshwar Rao Interim CBI Director, had been quashed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.01.2019 as it was made in violation of the procedure for appointment of CBI Director as defined in the DSPE Act.”
The petition said that despite this, the government had invoked the quashed order to once again make Rao the Interim Director of the CBI “even though it is not the competent authority and does not have any powers to make the appointment, without following the due process laid down in the DSPE Act”.
The petitioner alleged that the government “has attempted to stifle the independence of the institution of the CBI by appointing the Director of the CBI in an arbitrary and illegal manner”.
It requested the court to direct the government to appoint a regular director by following the procedure laid down in the DSPE Act.
