UPA in a bind over law minister after CBI says he interfered in coalgate

The affidavit was in variance with what the Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval told the court earlier, that no one from the political exec had seen the report

The issue of what to do with Law Minister Ashwani Kumar is haunting the government following the affidavit by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Ranjit Sinha in the Supreme Court today: That not just the Law Minister but also officials in the Ministry of Coal and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) discussed, debated and amended the draft status report on the coal block allocation scam before it was presented to the Court, “as desired” by the Law Minister.

This was at variance with what the Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval had told the court earlier: that no one from the political executive had seen the report. The move also militates against all previous Supreme Court guidelines concerning government guidance of an autonomous investigative agency like the CBI.

The CBI Director told the court, however, that the final report being filed in the court “has not been shared with any political executive in any manner whatsoever.”  In respect of further status reports of the investigations in this matter, “I undertake and assure this court that the same shall not be shared with any political executive.”

Within hours of the presentation of the affidavit, parliament was in an uproar and both houses had to be adjourned for the day. Ostensibly the government, represented by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath, asserted that there was no reason for the Law Minister to resign. But privately sources conceded that they were saying this because they had no option: If Ashwani Kumar was made to step down, the spotlight would be squarely and directly on the Prime Minister, something that had to be avoided at all cost.

Privately, several Congress MPs and Ministers told Business Standard Ashwani Kumar had no business interfering with the work of the CBI. Kumar himself said: “truth will prevail” He added: “I am not the political executive, I am the Law Minister”. But the Opposition was equally clear that it would not rest till it had Kumar’s head. In a bid to save what remained of the Budget Session, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath rushed to meet top opposition leaders to plead with them to clear the financial business of the session – passing the Finance Bill and other budget-related legislation – on 6 and 7 May. But barring an understanding on this, MPs were almost unanimous that the session would be a wash-out.

The biggest embarassment of the day came on account of the CBI affidavit that revealed how much the government interferes with the functioning of the CBI. A three-judge bench headed by Justice R M Lodha had directed the CBI on March 12 to file an affidavit clarifying whether the status report of March 8 was vetted by the director only and “nothing containing  there has been shared with the political executive.” Today’s affidavit was filed in response to that order. The case will come up in the court on Tuesday.

When the cases was taken up last time, the judges pointedly asked the CBI whether the status report submitted to the court was shown to any political authority.  

During the last hearing there appeared to be  differences between the government’s stand and that of the CBI. While the judges stated that there seemed to be violation of the procedure and favouritism to a small group of companies, Attorney General G E Vahanvati vehemently denied any unfair or arbitrary policy adopted in the allocation of coal blocks by UPA-I during 2006-09. “CBI is not the final word on this,” counsel said.

 The judges had warned that    “If we find the procedure was not followed, the entire allocations will go.” If  on 30 April, the court cancels all allocations because the procedure was not followed the opposition is already preparing the argument that all matters relating to coal block allocation were ruled by cronyism not transparent rules and in order to cover up this evidence, the government was ready to go to any lengths including interfering with the working of the CBI.