Justice NV Ramana is the third judge after CJI Gogoi and Justice Sikri to recuse in the plea challenging Centre's decision to appoint M Nageswara Rao as interim director of the CBI.
Supreme Court Justice NV Ramana on Thursday recused himself from hearing a plea challenging Centre's decision to appoint M Nageshwara Rao as interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
He is the third judge after Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice AK Sikri to recuse in the plea filed by an NGO seeking a direction to quash the January 10 order of the government appointing the IPS officer as an interim director of the CBI.
While recusing himself from hearing the matter, Justice Ramana said Rao is from his home state and he had attended the wedding ceremony of Rao's daughter.
Justice Ramana referred the matter to the CJI to list it before an appropriate bench.
While the CJI cited that he is part of the high-level committee that will appoint the new CBI chief, Justice Sikri was part of the high powered panel which had removed CBI Director Alok Verma.
CBI's Additional Director Rao was given the charge of CBI interim chief on January till the appointment of a new director after a high-powered committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi removed Alok Kumar Verma as the chief of the probe agency on charges of corruption and dereliction of duty.
The petition, filed by NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, has sought laying down of specific mechanisms to ensure transparency in the process of appointment of CBI director.
It alleged that Rao's appointment was not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee, comprising the prime minister, the leader of the single largest opposition party and the chief justice of India or a judge of the apex court nominated by him.
"In fact, it appears that the committee was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act," the plea, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said.
It stated that the order of October 23 last year appointing Rao as the interim CBI director was quashed by the top court on January 8 but the government has "acted in a completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner" to appoint him again in "complete contravention" of the DSPE Act.
The plea also sought a direction to the Centre to appoint a regular CBI director forthwith by following the procedure laid down in accordance with the provision of DSPE Act, as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The apex court had on January 8 allowed Alok Kumar Verma to return as the CBI director, albeit with his wings clipped, by setting aside the Centre and the CVC's orders divesting him of his powers and sending him on leave.
However, the top court had said it was "still open" for the high-powered committee, which selects the CBI chief, to consider the matter within a week since the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is probing the charges of corruption against Verma.
It had set aside the October 23, 2018, orders of the CVC and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) divesting Verma of his powers and asking Rao to look after the duties and functions of the agency's Director.
On January 10, the high-powered committee removed Verma as the CBI Director. The same day, an order was issued by the government giving Rao the charge of interim CBI director.
(With PTI inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "File photo of Supreme Court, PTI")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}