Probe agency argues that the apex court’s direction will be deemed interference.
The CBI on Tuesday opposed Janata Party leader Subramaniam Swamy’s plea that home minister P Chidambaram’s role in the allocation of the 2G spectrum be investigated under the aegis of the Supreme Court.
The apex court was hearing Swamy’s plea that the then finance minister’s role be examined and, if need be, prosecuted in the scam if the proposed investigation throws up anything.
The CBI’s counsel argued that the SC could not direct their investigations as that would be deemed as an interference in its functioning. Interestingly, what was artfully side-stepped by the CBI’s counsel is the fact that Chidambaram, as home minister, heads the ministry which is the cadre-controlling authority of the IPS, who man all the senior-most positions in the CBI. The MHA decides on the promotions and postings of all IPS officers which could be a possible conflict of interest in this case.
Chidambaram as finance minister had been part of the decision-making process when the then communication minister A Raja allotted the spectrum licenses forgoing auction.
The “question of any further investigation or addition of accused in the case have to be decided by the trial court and not by this court,” senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, told the bench of justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly.
The SC had earlier asked Swamy to produce details and material to make a case for an investigation into Chidambaram’s role in the scam. Complying with its directions, Swamy said, he had compiled the dates of meetings between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram in 2008 on the allocation of spectrum licenses. “I now can substantiate the holding of these meetings on January 30, May 29, June 12 and July 4”, he told the court.
While the agency claimed that neither the PM nor Chidambaram were suspects, Swamy insisted that they were because two of these meetings were strictly related to the spectrum licence price. “The question now arises as to why the CBI is insistent that Raja was solely responsible for the price fixing,’’ Swamy said.
The court asked the CBI’s counsel to cite the grounds to oppose a direction for an investigation. The judges observed that even if charges had been framed in a case, it did not prevent the investigating agency from questioning even those persons who had not been mentioned in the chargesheet so far.
Venugopal argued that any direction by the court at this stage would be deemed to be interference in the investigation and trial.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}