[ad_1]
While Verma 's plea sought to remain on the order of the Center asking him to leave on leave and to entrust the temporary load of his post to Mr. Nageswara Rao, an officer of the police force charged with letting him go. Odisha Odisha-cadre of 1986, the question was not raised during the brief hearing.
The hearing before a tribunal composed of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Judges S K Kaul and K M Joseph began with lead counsel Fali S Nariman, pleading for Verma, who opened the arguments.
Nariman began his arguments by citing the 1997 judgment of the Vineet Narain Court of Appeal, which aimed at investigating allegations of corruption against senior Indian officials, the 2003 law on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and amendments made to the Delhi Police Special Establishment (DSPE) Act.
He argued that the director of CBI is appointed for a two-year term by a committee composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the President of the Supreme Court of India, in accordance with the provisions of the DSPE law.
"The question is whether the warrant can be violated at any time?", He said at the hearing stating that the consent of the committee was required for the transfer of the director of CBI.
Nariman also argued that in this case, orders had been passed by the government, which took Verma out of office and sent him on leave.
He added that after the VMI orders were adopted on 23 October, another order was issued to appoint Rao as Director of the CBI.
However, before the issue of the suspension of the order of the government could be raised in court, the court informed Attorney General KK Venugopal that he would consider the issues.
"The only thing we need to look at is the temporary order to go in. Without wasting time, we will tell you what we have in mind," the CJI told Venugopal.
The court said the CVC investigation should be completed within 10 days and should be conducted under the supervision of a supreme court judge and that Rao would not take any political decision.
The Center and the CBI should place under a sealed cover the list of decisions made by Rao from 23 October to today.
The court stated that at this stage, the CVC had to determine whether there was a prima facie case to proceed and that, to do this, it was not obliged to go through thousands of pages of documents to that effect.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents CVC, said several documents needed to be reviewed during the investigation and that a 10-day deadline would not be enough.
When Mehta referred to Diwali's next break, the council observed, "Diwali is only for one day."
Mehta then told the court that under the provisions of the CVC Act, the commission had to send an annual report on the work done by the latter to the president, who would present it to Parliament.
"At the moment, the Supreme Court may consider that only CVC can examine it (the question related to the investigation) instead of being supervised by another person," he added. .
At this stage, lead counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who is appearing for CBI's special director, Rakesh Asthana, who was also sent on leave by the government, said that he had also filed a separate petition before the supreme court.
"We can not hear anything that is not in front of us," the bench told Rohatgi.
Rohatgi said that Asthana's request could be registered at the October 29 hearing.
He also told the court that Asthana had been designated as the defendant in the plea filed by the NGO Common Cause, who had asked a special investigation team (SIT) to open an investigation against CBI agents, including its special director.
Principal Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the NGO, said that in 2017, CVC did not hear the complaints against Asthana when he was appointed CBI Special Director.
[ad_2]Source link
