The Hindu : Centre committed contempt of court: Jethmalani

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 01, 2003

National

National

Centre committed contempt of court: Jethmalani

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI April 30. The former Union Law Minister and senior counsel for the three Europe-based Hinduja brothers today maintained before the Supreme Court that the Centre by filing a case against the three brothers without obtaining sanction from the Central Vigilance Commission had committed a gross contempt of court.

Making this submission before a Bench, comprising Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur, Mr. Jethmalani said the 1997 order of the apex court in the `Vineet Narain case' envisaged a strong CVC to supervise the functioning of the CBI but till this date, the Centre had violated this judgment leading to filing of a frivolous case against his clients.

Justifying the Delhi High Court order quashing the chargesheet against the three brothers — G.P. S.P. and P.P. Hindujas — for not obtaining prior approval of the CVC, counsel requested the court not to hear CBI's appeal against the High Court judgment till the Centre rectified its mistakes in this regard and purged itself of the contempt.

Tracing the origin of the case since 1986, Mr. Jethmalani said the prosecution in this case was politically motivated as there were allegations of involvement of former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi.

He contended that the CVC was envisaged to be a safeguard against frivolous and politically motivated prosecution. But in the ordinances and the Bill which had now been passed in the Lok Sabha (pending in the Rajya Sabha) no attempt had been made to vest the powers to the CVC as per the Vineet Narain case.

Counsel said the Hindujas had admitted the receipt of commission of about Rs. 14 crores from Bofors company but it was not connected with the Bofors gun deal. He also brought to the notice of the court the urgency with which the CBI filed the supplementary chargesheet against the Hindujas without waiting for the receipt of the clarification from the Swiss authorities.

He said if only the CVC had been constituted as contemplated in the Vineet Narain case, it would not have allowed the CBI to file the chargesheet against the Hindujas. He will continue his arguments tomorrow.

Earlier, the Solicitor General, Kirit Raval contended that under the Vineet Narain case, the CBI was supposed to insulate itself from political interference. To construe that the apex court directions were intended to provide additional safeguards in favour of individual accused persons was misconceived.

He said in the absence of any statutory requirement of prior permission or sanction for investigation, it could not be imposed as a condition precedent for initiation of the investigation.

The word superintendence could not be construed in a wider sense to permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by the CBI. He prayed for setting aside the High Court judgment to pave the way for the trial to proceed further.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National