[ad_1]
Common Cause, a non-governmental organization, through the intermediary of the lawyer Prashant Bhushan, on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to annul the ordinances passed by the Central Vigilance Commission and the Center Tuesday, the October 23, to withdraw from the work of the director of CBI, Alok Verma.
The orders had motivated the transfer of CBI management to Mr. Verma in order to preserve the credibility of the CBI and to ensure that public confidence in the institution would not be eroded due to persistent acrimony between Mr. Verma and IWC's Special Director, Rakesh Asthana, who was also invited to sit down.
The request was for the annulment of the Appointments Committee's Decree of 23 October, entrusting Mr. Nageshwar Rao, the IWC's top official, with the mandate of director of the country's first investigative body.
Mr. Bhushan orally referred the petition to a court headed by the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi.
He called for the dismissal of Mr. Asthana and urged the court to order an investigation by SIT into unprecedented incidents recently observed in the IWC and allegations of corruption against senior officials of the IWC. # 39; agency.
The petition argued that the 2013 Law on Lokpal and Lokayuktas amended the Delhi Special Police Act (DSPE) of 1946, which established the IWC.
The amendments had substituted the panel led by the Commissioner for Central Vigilance, in accordance with Section 4A (1) of the DSPE Act, to the very powerful panel of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition at Lok Sabha and the judge in head of India. The project control group was empowered to recommend the appointment of the Director of the CBI. Thus, any "transfer" or withdrawal of work by the Director of the CBI before the end of his statutory two-year term would necessarily require the prior agreement of the committee headed by the Prime Minister and not of the committee led by the CVC. This is provided for in section 4B (2) of the DSPE.
"No current for HVAC"
Under the amended Lokpal law, the CVC special group, under Article 4C of the DSPE Act, has the power only to recommend the appointment, to restrict or to broaden the mandate of the agents of the judicial police at the level of the Superintendent of Police, including the Special Director of Police, but not the Director of the CBI.
On the other hand, the CVC and the government both insist, in their respective orders of 23 October, on the power of the Commission to transfer Mr Verma from office. They also cite the 2003 Central Vigilance Commission Act and the DSPE Act to show that they can "monitor and control" the agency.
They said their decision was made in an "extraordinary and unprecedented" situation.
To this end, the government and the CVC rely on Article 4 (1) of the DSPE Act, which allows the Commission to supervise investigations of offenses under the Prevention of Torture Act. 1988. The DSPE gives the Center the supervisory power over CBI. "In all other areas".
Subsection 4 (1) is reproduced in section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act. These provisions allow the Commission to monitor the IWC and provide guidelines for investigating corruption cases.
But the controversial point is whether these provisions allow the government and the Commission to strip the director of the IWC of his work.
Mr. Bhushan urged the court to file a motion against Mr. Verma, filed on October 24, against his deportation. Mr. Bhushan requested this so that the common cause petition could be heard with that of Mr. Verma on Friday. However, the CJI remained non-citizen.
Charges against Asthana
In his petition, Mr. Verma emphasized the government's intervention in the operation of the IWC and went on to Mr. Asthana, accusing him of thwarting the decisions made as part of 39 investigations of sensitive cases, even under the control of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Verma accused Mr. Asthana of "concocting evidence" to damage his reputation.
Mr. Bhushan had, in 2017, represented Common Cause at the Supreme Court as part of a plea for the cancellation of the appointment of Mr. Asthana, IPS officer of the Gujarat cadres, to the post Special Director of the IWC.
Common Cause had alleged in 2017 that "the investigators in the Sterling case would not be able to investigate freely and fairly on the role of their supervisor, known to be close to Sandesara / Sterling Biotech Ltd and, hence, the institutional integrity of CBI would be compromised "
But at the time, the Center had declared that Mr. Asthana was an "outstanding" officer who had successfully conducted investigations in about forty scams, including the UPA Coal Coal scam. 2 and prosecutions against ministers and officials of the Delhi Government.
In a brisk response to the Supreme Court, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had alleged that Mr. Asthana had been named against CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma's dissent.
Mr. Venugopal stated that Mr. Verma, instead of complaining, had "strongly recommended to Mr. Asthana to be appointed Special Director of the IWC, and continues to do so".
However, Mr. Verma's October 24 application to the Supreme Court indicated that he had opposed the appointment of Mr. Asthana as the IWC's Special Director.
[ad_2]Source link
