[ad_1]
Verma was sent on leave on 23 October [19659004] Appointed from all his responsibilities and sent on leave last month, CBI Director Alok Verma told the Supreme Court on Thursday that He had been appointed for a two-year term and that he could not be transferred. He added that the decision taken by the government on October 23 to release him from his responsibilities was tantamount to a transfer. The Center, meanwhile, baderted that he was entitled to deprive Verma of his responsibilities until the close of the investigation.
Attorney General KK Venugopal testified before the seat of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and judges SK Kaul and KM. Joseph felt that the action did not constitute a transfer, so that it was not necessary to refer to the selection committee composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the from the President of the Supreme Court of India.
In the meantime, the court made it clear that he was not complaining about the allegations. counter-allegations at this stage and would consider only the question of law, whether the government had the power to take action. He will hear the arguments on December 5th.
See also: AG states that the government acted in the public interest, at the next hearing on December 5
when senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for the chief of the Congress, Mallikarjun Kharge, asked to refer CJI Gogoi said: "We will not look into these allegations at the moment. We treat it only as a bill. "
The leading lawyer, Fali S Nariman, representative of Verma, said that the government could not touch the director without the prior agreement of the committee. Venugopal stated in front of the headquarters that the committee's task was only to "select" the appropriate candidates for the position of director and that the role of the government was to "name" one of the them.
"The government has all the control over the appointee for the simple reason that it has already been appointed, so there is no need for the committee to decide anything that concerns the appointee." Venugopal said.
Referring to the vicious struggle between Verma and the IWC's special director, Rakesh Asthana, which resulted in the order to transfer the two charges, Venugopal
He said that Verma was still the director of the CBI and continued to benefit from the same facilities, including staff and place of residence. "Can he claim to have been transferred?"
remanded the Attorney General to the 2003 Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, which states that the CBV's CBV supervisory authority is limited to investigating cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
CJI Gogoi stated that the CVC order fell within these sections and that "in accordance with this, there is an order from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)". He asked "whether this order should fall within the scope of section 4 (2) (of the 1946 Law on the Establishment of a Special Police in Delhi)". This section deals with the conditions of service of the Director of the CBI.
To that, Venugopal responded in the affirmative. The CJI asked if the subsequent order that would deprive the director of his powers should have come from the government. Venugopal stated that the CVC's powers had been activated as a result of a complaint filed by Asthana with the Cabinet Secretary.
Nariman asked the House to read that the badignment of Verma's responsibilities amounted to a transfer. He added that the CVC law made it clear that the director could not be transferred without the approval of the committee.
"Which meant that he should not leave office without the approval of the committee. Verma was appointed after consultation of the committee. The position is indefinite. So you can not transfer it, even if it benefits him, without the sanction of the committee, "he said, adding that the government's order was to" cut one's wings. "
With Nariman insisting that the government should not have acted without it With the consent of the committee, Judge Joseph sought to know "and if he is caught in the act of corruption." Nariman replied that the government will have to inform the committee and go to court. "But you can not do it ex post facto," he said, before asking "if not, what is the independence envisaged."
The CJI stated that the court was not yet ready to decide on the need to enter the CVC Report, in which case it would seek answers from the parties.
Source link
