New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday ordered setting up of a special court to exclusively hold trial of the coal blocks allocation scam and asked the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to nominate a judge, who will deal with the cases arising out of the investigation conducted by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate.
A bench headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha also decided to appoint an eminent lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for conducting the trial proceedings before the special court in the national capital for which the Chief Justice of the High Court has been asked to nominate a judge within a week.
"As of now we direct the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to write to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to take orders from the Chief Justice to nominate an officer from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as Special Judge to deal with coal block allocation matters registered under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act and other allied offences," the bench, also comprising justices MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph, said.
The bench said that the Registrar General will communicate the decision to the apex court before July 25 when the matter will be taken up again for hearing. Meanwhile, the bench asked all the stakeholders to hold consultation for unanimous choice on the appointment of SPP, for conducting the trial of cases arising out of the probe in the coal blocks allocation scam.
"We want a person of impeccable integrity and with free legal mind," the bench said and the name of senior advocate Gopal Subramanium was mentioned as the first choice among others. While lawyers, appearing in the matter, were in agreement with Subramanium's name being suggested as SPP, the CJI said there would be a need to persuade him to take up the assignment.
"If I failed in something you (lawyers appearing in the matter) should persuade him," CJI Lodha said in an apparent reference to the controversy which led Subramanium withdraw his consent from the apex court collegium for his appointment as the judge of the Supreme Court.
However, two-hour long hearing on the issue of SPP, witnessed the Centre supporting the CBI in its stand opposing the apex court's suggestion and that of the petitioner NGO that the SPP would be allowed to scrutinise and examine the case materials before the filing of the charge sheets.
Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar concurred with the contention of CBI counsel Amarendra Sharan that scrutinizing and examining of the materials was the task of in-house prosecutors and the role of SPP would come after filing of the charge sheets before the designated court which can seek the opinion of the SPP wherever required.
The bench, which initially favoured that any lawyer appointed as SPP would be entitled to scrutinise documents before filing of charge sheets, later relented as there was a view that people in CBI can refuse to accept the opinion of the SPP.
"It will put the person (SPP) in an embarrassment if his opinion is not accepted by the people or officials in the CBI. We want to appoint a person of stature as the SPP who will feel comfortable before the court rather than taking a position before the department people," the bench observed.
The bench also dropped the idea of SPP dealing with the CBI people before the filing of charge sheets as Solicitor General suggested that such a step could prove as "game changer" in the criminal justice system.
"It will have a wide-ranging implication on the entire criminal justice system. It will open a pandora box," Kumar said while CBI counsel was trying to impress the bench that such authority lies with the prosecutors working in the agency.
The Solicitor General and the CBI came out with their explanation as the bench wanted to know from them "what is the problem if the SPP is given the task of scrutinising the documents and charge sheets before the filing."
Earlier, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, Common Cause, handed over to the bench some names of senior advocates who could be appointed as the SPP.
After Subramaniam, the bench mentioned the name of senior advocate Dayan Krishnan referred by the NGO, which was objected to by advocate M L Sharma, who filed the first PIL on coalgate. He said Krishnan was aligned to Aam Aadmi Party. The CBI has initiated around 16 regular cases on coal block allocations, including those against the then MP Naveen Jindal and former minister of state for coal Dasari Narayan Rao in relation to coal block allocation and against KM Birla and former coal secretary P C Parakh for alleged illegality in grant of blocks to Hindalco Industries Ltd.
CBI was accused by an NGO, Common Cause which claimed that the probe in the scam was not moving fairly and there were instances that without seeking opinion of the CVC, the agency was filing closure reports in regular cases. The bench had also taken note that there are cases in which senior officials of the CBI have overruled the investigating officers after the preliminary enquiry on the issue of filing the regular cases and charge sheets. It had directed the CBI to place files relating to all preliminary enquires before the CVC for getting the report of the two vigilance commissioners.
Comments
0 comment