Is screening committee's decision against public interest:

A special court today sought to know from the CBI whether there was "transparency" in the decision of the screening committee recommending allocation of coal blocks to JAS Infrastructure and Power Ltd against whom the agency has filed a closure report in a coal scam case.
Hearing CBI's submissions on the point of consideration of the closure report, the court also asked special public prosecutor R S Cheema whether the functioning of the screening committee was against the "public interest".
"Now the issue is whether the functioning of screening committee was against public interest as then it would attract section 13(1)(d) and would amounts to section 13(1)(d)(ii) (abusing his position as public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"And also, whether there was transparency and objectivity in the decision of the screening committee," special CBI judge Bharat Parashar asked the CBI.
During the hearing, the investigating officer of the case informed the court that he would file a revised closure report in the case annexing all the documents of the case.
The court fixed October 14, when CBI is likely to file a revised closure report in the case.

The judge also directed that the investigating officers (IOs) in all coal scam cases would give an undertaking while filing final reports in the matters stating that they have submitted all the documents relating to the case in the court.

CBI had earlier sought some time to file a supplementary closure report in the case saying it was almost complete.
The court had directed the IO to give the names and designations of the Coal Ministry officials who dealt with the 35th and 36th screening committee.
It had also observed that the probe was "incomplete".
CBI had said the agency will file a comprehensive revised closure report which would be "explanatory" in nature.
CBI's move had come after the court's earlier observation that nothing was clear in its closure report and it was irked over the agency adopting different yardsticks in different cases and not following a uniform policy in its investigation.