[Alok Verma Case] CVC Has No Power To Seal The Office Of CBI Director And To Divest Him Of Duties : Kapil Sibal

Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for NGO Common Cause, sought a two fold relief- that the divestiture of Alok Kumar Verma of the charge of the CBI as well the appointment of Mr. M. Nageshwar Rao as the Interim Director be set aside.The Chief Justice required him to confine his arguments to the propriety of the move of sending Verma on leave without running it by the Selection Committee first.https://www.livelaw.in/alok-verma-case-session-1-cbi-director-cannot-be-transferred-without-the-consent-of-appointment-panel-fali-nariman-tells-sc/“My fundamental submission, which is also accepted in administrative law, is that what cannot be done directly cannot even be done indirectly...In Vineet Narain, the scheme for according tenure guarantee to the CBI director was envisaged in an attempt to ‘deal with the structure, constitution and the permanent measures necessary for having a fair and impartial agency’ and to insulate ‘these agencies from any extraneous influence to ensure the continuance of the good work they have commenced’...”“The CVC does not have any supervisory powers over the CBI in respect of its officers; its superintendence is confined to the investigations and prosecutions in corruption matters....In Vineet Narain, Lordships have said that the government shall remain answerable for the CBI’s functioning, that the Central government shall take measures to ensure that the CBI functions effectively and efficiently and that it is viewed as a non-partisan agency, and that Director Shall conduct regular appraisals of personnel to weed out the corrupt and the inefficient and maintain strict discipline within the organisation; the CVC is only required to review the cases taken up by the CBI for investigation, their progress and the filing of chargesheets, and the cases moved by the CBI for sanction for the prosecution of public servants...the same has been supplemented by the CVC Act...”Insisting that in matters of discipline the CVC has no role to play, Mr. Dave relied on Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank (1991) where the apex court had quashed the compulsory retirement of a Manager in a branch of the respondent-Bank, imposed by way of punishment on the recommendation of the Commission.“Section 4B of the DSPE Act uses the phrase ‘Terms and Conditions of Service of the Director’. What the Parliament intended was that the guarantee of the tenure of the Director was to be secured by the power of the Selection Committee. Suppose he is involved in a corruption case and has to be transferred, then also the consent of the Selection committee has to be sought...”https://www.livelaw.in/alok-verma-case-session-2-it-is-the-govt-not-the-selection-panel-has-the-power-over-appointment-of-cbi-director-ag-tells-sc/He indicated a 1978 Supreme Court ruling in so far as it notes that “to carry out effectually the object of a Statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined". "In another verdict rendered in 2001, the apex court has observed that “when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself”.“The Selection Committee has alone been entrusted with the power of transfer both by SC Judgments and the statute...this is like the Vishaka case where the Parliament recognized that this court had acted in the interest of the rule of law and introduced a legislation to give effect to its directions....”“If the rule of law is to be upheld, the impugned orders must be declared void ab initio and be set aside”, he signed off.Next, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharje, argued that the CVC could not have passed the impugned order under clauses (a) and (b) of section 8(1) of the CVC Act of 2003 as these provisions only grant the Commission a limited power of superintendence over the CBI in investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, section 4(1) of the DSPE Act also restricts the scope of CVC’s superintendence to specific investigations.“To seal his office and to not allow him to function is outside the ambit of the power of the CVC. The order relates to his conduct as the Director of the CBI”, he submitted.“The DoPT also could not have passed its order under section 4(2) of the DSPE Act on a consideration of the CVC recommendation and the allegations of corruption. Neither the CVC nor the government can override sections 4A and 4B (of the DSPE)”, pressed Mr. Sibal.“Your Lordships have held that the power to appoint, for the purpose of the General Clauses Act, also includes the power to suspend...like Your Lordships asked, if one is caught red-handed accepting a bribe, it can’t be that there is no remedy, but that remedy must also follow a procedure. The power of appointment is in the Selection committee, so the power to do away ...

[Alok Verma Case] CVC Has No Power To Seal The Office Of CBI Director And To Divest Him Of Duties : Kapil Sibal

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[Alok Verma Case] CVC Has No Power To Seal The Office Of CBI Director And To Divest Him Of Duties : Kapil Sibal

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers