6 years ago
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court last week had deferred the hearing on whether exiled CBI director Alok Verma will be reinstated or investigated further. The hearing had been deferred to November 29.
Today the top court is likely to decide whether the exiled CBI Director can be reinstated or to order further probe against him.
The Chief Justice of India had said none deserves hearing.
In its last hearing, the top court said he had not been given a clean chit in a vigilance report on corruption allegations against him.
The report is "complimentary on some charges, not-so-complimentary on some charges and very uncomplimentary on some charges," the court had told the CBI boss, asking him to respond to the report in a sealed cover.
Here are the Highlights of the Supreme Court hearing on the exiled CBI Director Alok Verma's case today:
Supreme court asks CBI to bring to court the list of all transfers and decisions taken by CBI recently for next hearing.
The case has been adjourned till Wednesday, 05 November.
The bench was irked over the publication of allegations levelled by agency's DIG Manoj Kumar Sinha in a separate plea. The senior lawyer said, "If I file something tomorrow in the Registry then it can be published."
If the Supreme Court later prohibits then the matter cannot be published, Mr Nariman added.
Mr Nariman referred to the terms and conditions of appointment and removal of the CBI director and concerned provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. He also told the bench, that the court cannot prohibit the publication of the content of the petition as Article 19 of the Constitution is paramount.
He also referred to the top court 2012 judgement in a case on the issue.
Making his submission before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, advocate Fali S Nariman said there was no basis for the Central Vigilance Commission to pass such an order recommending to send him on leave.
"There has to be strict interpretation of the Vineet Narain judgment. This is not the transfer and Verma has been denuded of his power and duties...otherwise there was no use of the Narain judgement and the law...," Mr Nariman said.
The government's order stripping Alok Verma of charges had no basis, his lawyer Fali Nariman argued before Supreme Court judges.
Mr Nariman said, "The CBI director can be removed only with the approval of a committee." He added, that a "government order cannot stand in the absence of permission from the committee".
On the other hand, when Justice KM Joseph questioned, "What if the CBI chief is caught red-handed accepting bribe?" Mr Nariman replied: "The centre should come to court or go to the committee."
Challenging the government's decision, his counsel and senior advocate Fali S Nariman said Verma was appointed on February 1, 2017 and "the position of law is that there will be a fixed tenure of two years and this gentleman cannot be even transferred".
The top court said that the CBI Director has not been given a clean chit in the vigilance report. The report is "complimentary on some charges, not-so-complimentary on some charges and very uncomplimentary on some charges," the court has told Mr Verma.
Supreme Court begins the hearing
Senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, appearing for exiled CBI director Alok Verma, today submitted to the Supreme Court that Verma should have a minimum period irrespective of his superannuation. He also said that Director's transfer should be cleared by Selection Committee which had selected him.
Senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, appearing for exiled CBI director Alok Verma, today submitted to the Supreme Court that Verma should have a minimum period irrespective of his superannuation. He also said that Director's transfer should be cleared by Selection Committee which had selected him.
The exiled CBI chief had challenged the government's October 23 decision to divest him of his duties and send him on leave.
Advertising in a stern warning to parties in the case, the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said: "This court is not a platform for people to come and express what they want. This is a place for adjudication of legal rights. This is not right. We intend to set it right." It also observed: "Our effort to maintain the respect of this institution is not being shared by everyone."
