Date:05/02/2005 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/02/05/stories/2005020504231200.htm

National

Petition against curtailing CBI's powers referred to five-judge Bench

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, FEB. 4. The Supreme Court today referred to a five-Judge Constitution Bench a petition seeking to quash the "single directive" in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. Under the Act, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was required to take prior approval of the Central Government for embarking on any enquiry or investigation against senior bureaucrats.

A three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Justice Tarun Chatterji referred the matter to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions on the applicability of Article 14 (equality before law) by three-judge benches earlier and since several important constitutional issues were involved in it.

The petition, filed by the Janata Party President, Subramanian Swamy, had submitted that the apex court in the `Vineet Narain case' had struck down the `single directive' but the same had been restored in the CVC Act. It said that by Sec. 26 (c) certain amendments had been made in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by inserting a new Section 6 A. (The CBI has been constituted under this Act). It said the CBI had been investigating the cases without any impediment of prior sanction from the Central government since December 18, 1997 when the apex court delivered its judgment. It said the amendments to the CVC Act had revived the core provisions of the single directive by which the CBI could not even embark on an inquiry or investigation without prior approval of the Central Government in relation to certain highly placed bureaucrats above the rank of Joint Secretaries. It said though these provisions were not incorporated in the CVC Bill 1999, they had found their place in the 2003 Act. Dr. Swamy contended that by incorporating these provisions there was no confidentiality and insulation of the investigative agency from political and bureaucratic control and influence because approval of the Central Government would involve leaks and disclosures at every stage. The Centre had justified the amendment stating that it was necessary since bureaucrats had been the victims of false and frivolous complaints. Senior officials occupying key positions were required to discharge their functions independently and fearlessly and hence they need to be protected from arbitrary complaints. It said the premise that Section 6 A of the CVC Act would have the effect of thwarting investigation proceeded on the assumption that the heads of department would act arbitrarily and have extraneous consideration in all cases.