CBI vs CBI: Challenge to Alok Verma’s ouster [Live Updates from Supreme Court]

The cases filed by CBI Director Alok Verma and NGO Common Cause challenging the decision of the Central government to send Verma on leave is being heard now at the Supreme Court..During the last hearing, the Court had simply deferred the matter since CJI Ranjan Gogoi was upset about the fact that Alok Verma’s responses to the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) were leaked to media, which were supposed to be in a sealed cover..Last month, the Court had ordered that the CVC inquiry initiated against Verma be completed within two weeks under the supervision of retired Supreme Court Judge, AK Patnaik, to find out if there is a prima facie case made out against Verma. On November 16, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph had directed that a copy of the CVC report be served on Alok Verma so that he can respond to it. Alok Verma submitted his response to the CVC report in a sealed cover on November 19..Who is Justice AK Patnaik? [Read Interview]“Many competent, honest persons have not been brought to the Supreme Court” .Here are the live updates of today’s hearing:.#CBI – #AlokVerma: Hearing commences in Supreme Court..Fali Nariman referring to Sahara judgment in the context of publication by media of materials which have been filed in court before the matter is heard.Nariman says that the view in Sahara judgment is that media cannot be prohibited from publishing material which has been filed in court.Fali Nariman urges Court to frame some guidelines or circular regarding publication by media of materials filed in court.The Court seems to have let go of the issue regarding media publishing Alok Verma’s responses to CVC. Now the hearing moves on to the main issue.Fali Nariman citing Vineet Narain’s case regarding the appointment of CBI officers, functioning and independence of CBI.Nariman advancing arguments on appointment and transfer of CBI Director. Says transfer of CBI Director should have the approval of the Selection Committee.CBI Director shall not be transferred except with the previous consent of the Committee, Fali Nariman.With effect from 2014, the appointment of the CBI Director is to be done by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. If there is no leader of the opposition, then the leader of the single largest party will be part of the committee, submits Fali Nariman.It is not that he cannot be transferred; he can be, but it should be with the consent of the Committee, Fali Nariman.If he was to be transferred, they should have consulted the Committee. They have not transferred him, but still divested him of his powers by the leave order, Fali Nariman.What was the purpose of all this, asks Fali Nariman.The leave order will not stand without permission from the Committee, Fali Nariman.Fali Nariman concludes his arguments.Dushyant Dave begins arguments for NGO Common Cause. For now, the arguments will be limited to the aspect of deference to the Committee.Dushyant Dave making submissions on the scheme brought in by the Vineet Narain judgment for appointment and transfer of CBI Director and the necessity of the same.In matters of discipline, CVC has no role to play, Dushyant Dave.Dushyant Dave submits that it is settled principle in administrative law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. This in the context of Govt issuing a leave order instead of the transfer order.Bench rises for lunch. Hearing to resume post-lunch break.Challenge to Alok Verma’s ouster from CBI [Live Updates from Supreme Court [November 16, 2018]CBI Director Alok Verma challenges ouster in Supreme Court .Post Lunch hearing updates:.Bench reassembles, hearing resumes. Dushyant Dave continuing with his submissions.Title of Section 4B of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act is very important; it is “terms and conditions of service”, Dushyant Dave.Selection committee alone has been entrusted both by Your Lordships and the Parliament to take such an action. Hence, this present order falls foul of rule of law, Dushyant Dave.For the same reason, the appointment of M Nageshwar Rao as an interim director should also be set aside, Dushyant Dave concludes.Kapil Sibal commences arguments for Mallikarjun Kharge, leader of the largest opposition party (INC).The order by CVC is outside the ambit of the power of superintendence of the CVC, submits Kapil Sibal.The power of superintendence cannot override Sections 4A and 4B of DSPE Act, Kapil Sibal.This matter has to go to the Committee. The Committee can then take a decision based on the material on record, submits Kapil Sibal.What happened to CBI today could happen to CVC tomorrow, argues Sibal.Are you saying CBI Director can’t be touched by government, transferring him, sending him on leave, suspending him and that it can be done only by Committee, asks CJI Gogoi; Yes, that is my submission, Kapil Sibal.No exception? Gogoi J; No exception, says SibalKapil Sibal concludesSenior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan now making his arguments on behalf of AK Bassi.There is an emphasis on autonomy with a guaranteed 2-year tenure, Rajeev Dhavan.The non-obstante clause in Section 4B overrides all rules. No rule can be invoked to whittle away the two-year tenure, Rajeev Dhavan.If there is a lacuna in the Act, only Your Lordships can fill the same. They (Govt) cannot act claiming that they will plug the lacunae, Rajeev Dhavan.“Should you have not filed a separate independent petition?”, CJI Gogoi to AK Bassi. “At this stage I am only assisting Your Lordships”, replies Dhavan.CJI Ranjan Gogoi persists with the question of locus. “You are saying you would not have been transferred if Alok Verma was not sent on leave”, Gogoi queries on reasons why Bassi has filed an intervention application instead of a separate petition.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising also seeks to answer this question. Says there is a genuine apprehension of victimisation.Attorney General KK Venugopal commences arguments on behalf of Central government.Attorney General KK Venugopal expounding the provisions of DSPE Act.The appointing authority is the Central government. The power of selection and the final choice for a appointment of Director is made by Union govt, AG KK Venugopal.The committee selects a group of candidates and put it up before the govt. It is the govt which then appoints one among those candidates, AG Venugopal.So the committee’s powers is only up to the selection of group of candidates, the power to appoint then vests with the Central govt. alone, submits AG Venugopal.AG KK Venugopal says Alok Verma continues to be in Delhi and is being provided all amenities here. “So can he claim he has been transferred?”CJI Ranjan Gogoi posing questions to AG Venugopal on Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of DSPE Act.“Does the power of this current order flow from 4(1) or 4(2)?”, CJI Gogoi. “According to me, it can flow from both 4(1) and 4(2) as long as it comes within the scope of the term ‘superintendence'”, replies AG KK Venugopal.Bench rises for the day, hearing to resume on Wednesday on the aspect of deference to committee. “Should it become necessary to go into the CVC report, then we might have to defer the hearing to allow all parties to respond on the report”, CJI Gogoi..Talk on Twitter (www.twitter.com/barandbench)