CBI opposes amicus curiae in coal scam

The CBI Tuesday opposed a Supreme Court move to appoint an amicus curiae to assist it in giving an objective view of the status report filed by the agency in alleged irregularities in coal block allocations scam.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told a bench of Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph that such a move would blur the thin line between the monitoring and the supervision of the investigation, and would compromise the independence of its probe.

Meanwhile, the court has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a petition by NGO Common Cause seeking investigation into the proceeds of the crime that was generated in the coal scam.

The court notice was issued after counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, said that after the CBI comes to the conclusion that prima facie an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act has taken place, then it is incumbent upon ED to investigate as to what has happened to the proceeds of the crime and attach them.

The application by Common Cause said that the reliable information available with it says that ED has registered only five to seven cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the coal scam case, much less then what the CBI has registered.

Seeking the court monitoring of the investigation by the ED, the NGO said: "As per the scheme of the PMLA, which deals with the proceeds of a crime, the coal blocks/mining leases in question are liable to be attached under Section 5 of the PMLA in view of the fact that the allocation of the blocks allegedly involved the commission of offences scheduled under the PMLA.

"To the best of the petitioners' information, no attachment orders have been issued till date."

Earlier during the course of the hearing Tuesday, as the court sought to ascertain what prejudice would be caused to CBI if it appointed an amicus curiae to assist it objectively understanding the status reports of it investigations into coal scam, senior counsel Amarinder Saran said that it would affect the "purity" of its investigation.

Saran, who appeared for CBI, told the court that he was there to clarify any question that court may have on its status reports.

An assertive Saran told the court that if investigating agency was not sharing its report with the constitutional authority - Attorney General G.E.Vahanvati, it would not share it with an outsider (amicus curiae).

However, Prashant Bhushan told the court that there were several instances where court had appointed the amicus curiae and the report of the investigating agencies given to court in a sealed cover were made available to them (amicus curiae).

He said that it was the prerogative of the court to appoint anyone to assist it.

However, PIL petition M.L.Sharma told the court that it could appoint anyone as amicus curiae but he would not be interacting with judgers in their chambers only and it would not form the part of the court proceedings in the matter.