Before reserving its order, the Court asked the CVC to explain what "emergent and extraordinary" situation arose for robbing the Director of his powers on October 23 when the dispute between the two top officers in CBI was out in the open since July 2018.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ended hearing on two petitions challenging the unprecedented removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Alok Kumar Verma but opened room for speculation by wondering whether the law or past court rulings made the Director "totally untouchable".
The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph found a reason to suggest so. On a reading of the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003, the bench found a provision contained in Section 6 of the Act which protects Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioners from removal except on order of the President or on a reference by President to the Supreme Court. But with regard to CBI Director, no such protection was prescribed under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the law that governs his appointment.
The bench asked the petitioners, "Can you place the position of the CBI Director above the CVC? Does it make the Director totally untouchable? So far as the CVC, VCs are concerned, there is a special protection under Section 6. What was the difficulty for Parliament to introduce similar protection for the CBI Director as well?" At a later point, the court commented that while there is CVC to monitor the CBI, who is there to supervise the Director.
Senior advocate Fali Nariman who appeared for Verma told the court that the even if a Director gets caught red handed in an offence, the Selection Committee of Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India has to be consulted before Director is replaced or transferred. He found the decision of the Centre to appoint an Interim Director to be in violation of the 1997 SC judgment in Vineet Narain case which gave power to select Director to the three member high level committee alone. However, Nariman did concede that the power to appoint an Acting Director was open to the apex court if such an exigency arrived.
Before reserving its order, the Court asked the CVC to explain what "emergent and extraordinary" situation arose for robbing the Director of his powers on October 23 when the dispute between the two top officers in CBI was out in the open since July 2018.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for CVC said, "A surprising situation arose as two senior officers of CBI started investigation against each other. FIRs were being filed with one officer and his team raiding the other officer and his team. We gave 40 days time for Verma to respond to the complaint against him. If we had not acted, we would be answerable to the executive, legislature and judiciary for remaining a mute spectator."
What’s The Rush
Before reserving its order, SC asked CVC to explain what “emergent and extraordinary” situation arose for robbing CBI director of his powers on Oct 23 when the dispute between the 2 top officers in CBI was out in open since July 2018.
){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}
 "SUPREME COURT")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}