The Centre on Tuesday strongly refuted the allegation made by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) that the CBI had diluted the third supplementary charge sheet filed in the 2G spectrum case against Loop Telecom due to the interference of Union Law Minister Salman Khursheed and two top functionaries in the CBI.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly will take up this application for further hearing on January 20. On January 5 the Bench issued notice to the Centre, the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate seeking their response to the CPIL's application which also alleged slow progress in the proceedings against the former Telecom Minister, Dayanidhi Maran, after the FIR was registered (CBI will respond separately on this aspect).
The Centre said: “The applicant's plea that interference of an influential Minister is evident is baseless. Opinions are opinions, which may or may not be accepted by others who may have a different opinion on the same issues. Therefore, the apprehension that this opinion is likely to weaken the prosecution case in the matter of Swan, Reliance as well is groundless. It is emphatically denied that the Law Minister is publicly giving clean chit to Essillor/Loop. The entire matter is in the domain of the CBI and the Court, which will take an independent view of all aspects of the matter.
“It is impermissible in law to make such serious allegations against a person who is not a party to the proceedings. The opinion of the Law Ministry reflects the understanding of facts and law of the author. The investigating agency is not bound by any opinion. It makes its own assessment of the facts and on the basis of its own understanding of the law, proceeds in the matter.”
“Tarnishing image”
The Centre took exception to the allegations and said the petitioner had made it a practice to make serious allegations against the functionaries of the government holding high Constitutional positions, one after another.
“It shows a design to tarnish their image and discredit the government, taking undue advantage of the wide publicity given to Court proceedings including the baseless allegations made in such applications.
“It is common knowledge that some of the office-bearers of CPIL [including advocate Prashant Bhushan] are consistently opposed to the ruling party and have been adopting the device of filing applications ostensibly seeking permission to bring certain facts on record but in the applications or the affidavits filed in support thereof, targeting individual Ministers or the Attorney General or officers of CBI by name behind their back in flagrant breach of principles of natural justice. A proceeding which started as a PIL is now turning out to be political interest litigation.”
As regards inferences drawn by the applicant from the opinion given by Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati, the Centre said “they are not justified.”
It said: “The applicants cannot assume the role of self-appointed supervisors of investigation on the basis of their own suspicion and presumption that everyone is corrupt. No department of the government can interfere with the ongoing investigation of the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate, much less the applicant who has no role at all in this matter.”
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2809160.ece?css=print