Business Standard

SC reserves verdict on Alok Verma plea, questions government action

IANS  |  New Delhi 

The on Thursday reserved its verdict on a plea by (CBI) and NGO Common Cause challenging the government's decision to divest him of his charges, asking if the action was "proportionate" to the allegation against him.

The day-long hearing saw the bench of Ranjan Gogoi, Justice and Justice expressing the opinion that it would have been better for the to consult the before it acted on Verma.

"It is better to consult the than not consulting it. The essence of every action is what is best in the interest of administration," the observed.

But argued: "CVC (Chief Vigilance Commissioner) could not have been a mute spectator to all that was going on. Two top officers instead of doing their work were investigating each other. CVC is answerable to the President, Parliament and the judiciary as well if it had not acted."

While CJI Gogoi suggested that the better course could have been to consult the Selection Committee, Justice Joseph questioned the proportionality of the government action: "You acted against on the basis of the complaint by There was nothing against him. We are asking if the action was proportionate..."

The hearing saw CJI Gogoi asking Fali Nariman: "If necessity arises, can this court appoint a person to act as "

"I think it can in exercise of its inherent powers," said Nariman, who is respresenting

As Mehta contested Nariman equating divesting Verma of his powers and functions with his transfer, the Gogoi observed: "Mr. Mehta, equating divesting Alok Verma with transfer should not be taken literally. What was happening since July? It was not something that happened overnight. What was the difficulty in consulting the "

Nariman, too, in the course of his rejoinder arguments, said that the use of word "transfer" to describe the divesting CBI Director of his powers and functions should not be viewed in the context of service jurisprudence of shifting a person from one post to another post.

He said that the use of word "transfer" to describe divesting of Verma of his powers and functions have to be seen in its context.

Mocking at the Centre's argument that Verma continues to be the CBI Director, Nariman said: "You may call me CBI Director. I may put it on my visiting card. I am not CBI Director more than what I am. What are we (referring to Attorney General's arguments) talking about - house, car, pay and perks? I am divested of powers which are invested in another person."

Kapil Sibal appearing for of the party in Lok Sabha Malikarjun Kharge said that it was incumbent upon the government to have approached the Selection Committee, place facts before it and had sought its approval for Verma's transfer.

He said that it was only after transferring Verma out of the CBI that the government could have invoked disciplinary proceedings against him and taken consequent action.

Sibal said that any other course would give government unregulated powers to divest CBI Director of his powers and functions.

He said that any other course would jeopardise the independence of the office of CBI Director.

Appearing for CBI A.K. Bassi, told the court that the "principle of autonomy" of the investigating agency was at the core of the top court judgment in Vineet Narain case and writ large on the Special Police Establishment Act.

Bassi was investigating allegations of corruption against and has now been transferred to

Dhavan said that the power that the government was asserting over the investigating agency, including that of hire and fire, "must yield to the principle of autonomy".

He said that the provision of the Special Police Establishment Act had to be read in totality and not in pieces as in disjointed reading of the Act, "we will miss the point (principle of autonomy)".

Appearing for the NGO Common Cause, senior counsel referred to the position taken by the CVC on the complaint against Asthana by Verma where the had said that it could not act on the complaint unless there was proven misconduct.

He said the CVC should have applied same criteria for Verma while dealing with Asthana's complaint against the CBI Director.

"CVC has to be scrupulously objective. It can't take different positions in different cases," Dave told the bench.



(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

First Published: Thu, December 06 2018. 21:02 IST