New Delhi: Several developments took place today in the matter of appointing of a full time director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Supreme Court told the Centre that it was “averse” to the appointment of an interim CBI director and asked why a regular one was not appointed.
The Centre stated that interim director Nageswara Rao was selected to the post in the high-powered committee (HPC) meeting held on January 11. However, Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge reportedly denied this while speaking to senior advocate Prashant Bhushan.
Subsequently, Bhushan, who appeared for petitioner NGO Common Cause, tweeted that “The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting!”
I have just confirmed personally from the Leader of Opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re appt of Nageswara Rao as interim Director CBI.The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting! https://t.co/MbEC5YLjkD
— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) February 1, 2019
In the Supreme Court, the matter was heard by Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha. They said the CBI director’s post was a sensitive one and so, a regular incumbent should have been appointed.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal briefed the court that a meeting of the HPC, chaired by the prime minister, was scheduled for today itself to select a new CBI director. He also submitted that the HPC had approved the appointment of Rao as the interim CBI director earlier.
The petition in the case was filed by NGO Common Cause to challenge the appointment of Rao as interim director.
SC pulls up Centre for delaying appointment
The Bench also pulled up the Centre for delaying the appointment despite knowing that the earlier CBI director was due to retire at the end of January.
Interestingly, the attorney general was also told by the court to ensure that the new CBI director traces “the movements of files” that took place when former director Alok Kumar Verma was reinstated for two days.
The Centre, through the attorney general, also placed before the bench in a sealed cover, the minutes of the HPC meeting held earlier on January 24, that was said to be “inconclusive.”
Also read: Transferred CBI Officer Accuses Nageshwar Rao of Having ‘No Honour’
Arguing for the NGO, Bhushan said the court must look into the aspect of transparency in the appointment process.
The hearing in the case today took place after three of the senior-most judges of Supreme Court – Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice N.V. Ramana – recused themselves for various reasons.
The petition had demanded specific mechanisms to ensure transparency in the process of appointing the CBI director.
‘Lack of transparency in appointment process’
Reacting to the developments, RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj also questioned the absence of transparency in the appointment process.
She wondered if the Supreme Court was again misled by the government through information given in a sealed cover (The Centre had adopted a similar strategy in the Rafale deal case).
Bhardwaj also noted, that while the government claimed that Rao’s appointment was approved by the HPC comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge and Justice Sikri, “Kharge says no such discussion took place”.
She said this was “exactly why we need transparency in the appointment process.”