[Never mind that the CVC opted to be a willing accomplice. Even then, the relieveing of the serving CBI Director, with fixed two-year tenure, of his charge, as it appears, clearly falls foul of the law.
Not only that, a junior officer, with corruption charges against him, has been pitchforked, over the heads of his seniors, onto the driver's seat. The Project Subversion (of vital state institutions) goes on with utter brazenness. Now, it's for the judiciary to safeguard its credibility. Let's see. 《Most of the mainstream narrative, prompted by the government or otherwise, managed to paint the events of recent days as an ego clash between the senior most two officers of CBI. This narrative, like most dished out by the mainstream media and propagandists in recent times, is outright false. Facts First Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 IPS officer from Gujarat cadre, was brought into the CBI after Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister. Even as Asthana was wielding unusual power in CBI, his name cropped up in the documents recovered from the premises of Sterling Biotech, whose promoters have now fled India after defaulting on loans worth over Rs 5,000 crore. Sandesaras of Sterling Biotech, their diary entries show, had extended several favours to Asthana, including hosting a wedding in his family. ... The latest dirt on Asthana came in the case of Moin Qureshi, a meat exporter who has been under the scanner of investigation agencies for years. A few days ago, a Hyderabad based businessman involved in the Qureshi case, Sana Satish, claimed that he paid huge bribes to CBI officers, including Asthana, to settle his case. Verma ordered FIR against Asthana, and CBI arrested one of its DSP rank officers, Devender Kumar, who is accused of forging documents to implicate CBI chief Verma. ... The Modi government’s move has raised several questions. Foremost is -- Does the Prime Minister, or the Cabinet Committee on Appointment have the right to remove a CBI chief? ... For those who have snarled their way into power, holding onto the protective hallows of it at any cost is important. They also know that tactical rhetoric served on an hourly basis is opium enough for the larger public to forget the massive assault on democratic institutions being staged in front of them. The removal of CBI chief has to be seen in that light. ... Darkness does not descend on us like an iron curtain at once, but slowly drips in, drop by drop, and before we realise it would be blinding dark.》 (Excerpted from sl. no. I. below.) 《*Is the government then empowered to act on such a recommendation by the CVC and send the CBI Director on leave?* The Supreme Court will examine this question on Friday. In its landmark judgment in Vineet Narain & Others vs Union of India & Anr (1997), the court laid down legally binding procedures that the central government must follow regarding the removal of the CBI Director. The order said the Director shall have a minimum tenure of two years, and that a premature transfer “in an extraordinary situation… should have the approval of the Selection Committee”. July 2013, the Manmohan Singh government said that the Director shall not be transferred “without the consent of Selection Committee”, and that “only President” would have the authority to “remove or suspend” the Director, on a reference by the CVC of “misbehaviour or incapacity”. In Verma’s case, the government has not taken the prior approval of the Selection Committee, nor has the CVC established his misbehaviour or incapacity.》 (Excerpted from sl. no. II. below.) 《The CBI was headed by Anil Sinha when Mr Rao joined in 2015. Amitabh Singh Dhillon, the head of the agency's counter-intelligence unit or Special Unit, had then tabled an adverse report on Mr Rao -- saying that he should not be inducted on the grounds of corruption charges levelled against him and his alleged proximity to political parties. However, the assessment was ignored by Mr Sinha as well as the government. ... Mr Rao is also accused of misrepresenting facts in his annual tax returns. All his assets filings post-2010 show a Rs. 20-lakh property owned by his wife and her cousin in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The cousin -- Dr Ratna Babu -- was later revealed to be the brother of his wife, Chinnam Sandhya. Although senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan posted some of these allegations on Twitter, the CBI has refused to react. NDTV reached out to the CBI for a reaction, but did not get one.》 (Excerpted from sl. no. llI. below.)] I/III. https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/this-cbi-crisis-is-not-2-officers-egos-clashing/articleshow/66355667.cms?fbclid=IwAR2owxpJncg9dwSQZnh9lu-JHP0V9WxgH0t51nse_JT23V76epg-ktkyJ94 This CBI crisis is not 2 officers’ egos clashing Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Oct 25, 2018, 08:34 IST This CBI crisis is not 2 officers’ egos clashing Alok Verma; Rakesh Asthana By Josy Joseph It is just a case of the CBI chief calling out a senior officer suspected of illegalities. IN NEW DELHI The juice vendor across the road from the CBI headquarters who served an unusually tall glass of juice this morning may have had sufficient reasons for it. His usual customers could be suspects emerging after hours of questioning and sufficiently thirsty to gulp down such copious amount of juice. On Wednesday, many of us who struggled with the juice quantity were not suspects, but mere witnesses staring at the CBI’s glass headquarters, where the latest Orwellian drama of Indian democracy was playing out. There is such a sickening monotony to such assaults that many on that road seemed to pay no heed to the drama. The previous night, the CBI chief was dramatically thrown out, his office sealed, and several officers dispersed from its headquarters. Most of the mainstream narrative, prompted by the government or otherwise, managed to paint the events of recent days as an ego clash between the senior most two officers of CBI. This narrative, like most dished out by the mainstream media and propagandists in recent times, is outright false. Facts First Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 IPS officer from Gujarat cadre, was brought into the CBI after Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister. Even as Asthana was wielding unusual power in CBI, his name cropped up in the documents recovered from the premises of Sterling Biotech, whose promoters have now fled India after defaulting on loans worth over Rs 5,000 crore. Sandesaras of Sterling Biotech, their diary entries show, had extended several favours to Asthana, including hosting a wedding in his family. In the recent times evidence also emerged of Asthana’s dubious conduct in several other cases. Almost half a dozen corruption cases are under probe against Asthana presently. In the light of such evidences, CBI chief Alok Verma opposed the elevation of Asthana to the post of special director of CBI. However, the committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner KV Chowdary overruled the CBI chief and promoted Asthana. With his political connections in full flow, Asthana continued to bully around in CBI. He compiled a list of officers for CBI postings, further pushing Alok Verma to write to CVC saying that Asthana will not be representing CBI in meetings. Verma also pointed out that several officers recommended by Asthana were facing criminal cases. The latest dirt on Asthana came in the case of Moin Qureshi, a meat exporter who has been under the scanner of investigation agencies for years. A few days ago, a Hyderabad based businessman involved in the Qureshi case, Sana Satish, claimed that he paid huge bribes to CBI officers, including Asthana, to settle his case. Verma ordered FIR against Asthana, and CBI arrested one of its DSP rank officers, Devender Kumar, who is accused of forging documents to implicate CBI chief Verma. Meanwhile, Asthana wrote to the CVC, detailing several allegations against the CBI chief. This complaint has significantly informed the CVC’s recommendation on Tuesday for forcing Verma out of office. The entire fight in CBI was not any ego clash between two senior officers, but the CBI chief trying to act against a senior officer suspected of illegal actions. Verma’s own morality and legal conduct is for a separate inquiry. It cannot be mixed up with Asthana’s conduct, the ruthless cover up provided by the government to Asthana, and its continuing assault on the autonomy of the investigation agency. Plenty of Questions The Modi government’s move has raised several questions. Foremost is -- Does the Prime Minister, or the Cabinet Committee on Appointment have the right to remove a CBI chief? In 1997, the Supreme Court laid down detailed norms under the Vineet Narain judgment on the appointment of CBI chief, CVC’s superintendence over CBI etc. To make the CBI independent and more professional, the court fixed a tenure of two years for CBI chief. It also laid down a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the opposition leader and the Chief Justice of India to decide on CBI chief. Verma’s camp is now also claiming that he was close to ordering a formal enquiry into the alleged Rafale scam, in which Advocate Prashant Bhushan, Arun Shourie and others have alleged massive corruption and nepotism. The elephant in the room For those who have snarled their way into power, holding onto the protective hallows of it at any cost is important. They also know that tactical rhetoric served on an hourly basis is opium enough for the larger public to forget the massive assault on democratic institutions being staged in front of them. The removal of CBI chief has to be seen in that light. The pigs of Animal Farm are now beginning to walk upright on two feet, like the humans they opposed. It is no more possible to distinguish between the saviours of democracy and its enemies. The pigs and human all look the same. Darkness does not descend on us like an iron curtain at once, but slowly drips in, drop by drop, and before we realise it would be blinding dark. II/III. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/understanding-cvc-govt-orders-against-alok-verma-5417028/?fbclid=IwAR2MlbelZqnECGYe4ko9XngHivmf9Lqbm6Ybb-lMcMlqjSZtJE-besOYFqU Understanding CVC, govt orders against Alok Verma What laws govern the appointment and removal of the CBI Director? How does the CVC recommendation — and the government move — to divest Alok Verma of his functions stack up against these provisions? Written by Kaunain Sheriff M | New Delhi | Updated: October 25, 2018 10:58:39 am The CBI headquarters Wednesday. (Express Photo/Tashi Tobgyal) Early Wednesday morning, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi appointed M Nageshwar Rao, a Joint Director at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as Director of the agency as an “interim measure” with “immediate effect”. This came after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) passed orders Tuesday “divesting” CBI Director Alok Verma of his “functions, power, duty and supervisory role” at the CBI. Why did the CVC and the government move against Verma? Earlier on Tuesday, Delhi High Court had directed CBI to maintain “status quo” until October 29 on proceedings against its Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who had sought the quashing of the agency’s FIR against him (filed on October 15) for alleged bribery. On Wednesday, the government said that action was taken against Verma based on the CVC’s decision to conduct an inquiry against him. It had “evaluated” the available material, the government said, and decided to send Verma on leave in the “interest of equality, fair play and principles of natural justice”. In its order of Tuesday, the CVC said that the allegations made in a complaint (dated August 24) that the Cabinet Secretary had forwarded on August 31 were “serious in nature having prima facie vigilance angle”. The allegations included “payment of Rs 2 crore as bribe by one Shri Satish Babu Sana to the Director, CBI (Verma)”, and “undue interference” in a case of corruption involving RJD chief Lalu Prasad. The CVC said it had “served 3 separate notices… dated 11.09.2018 upon the Director, CBI to produce files and documents” before it on September 14. However, even after the CBI sought more time, Verma had remained “non co-operative”, “non complaint”, and had “created wilful obstruction” in the CVC’s functioning. What was the basis on which the CVC made its decision? The CBI derives its legal powers from The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. The CVC has pointed out that Section 4(1) of the Act “vests the power of superintendence upon the DSPE with this Commission”, and “Section 8(1)(a) and (b) of the CVC Act also empowers the Commission to exercise superintendence over the functioning of DSPE”. Considering “the extraordinary and emergent situation that has arisen”, the CVC, “after a serious and due consideration of all the facts and circumstances”, directed that Verma be “divested of and shall not exercise any function, power, duty and supervisory role in respect of cases… under the provisions of the PC Act, 1988, till this interim measure is varied/modified/vacated”. But can the CVC make such a recommendation to the government? Section 4B of the DSPE Act lays down the “terms and conditions of service of (the CBI) Director”. The Director “shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the rules relating to his conditions of service, continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office” and “shall not be transferred except with the previous consent of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 4A”. This Committee consists of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court appointed by him. While both the central government and CVC’s order are silent on this provision, the CVC has mentioned Section 8(1)(a) of the CVC Act. However, both this section and Section 4 of the DSPE Act — also mentioned by the CVC — relate to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Verma has as yet not been accused of or named in an offence under the PC Act. The CVC has also invoked Section 8(1)(d) of CVC Act, which relates to inquiry or investigation of an official who has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 11, which says the CVC has the power of a civil court to summon persons, documents and examination of witnesses related to the inquiry. But these sections do not say the CVC has the power to recommend to the government to divest the CBI Director of his powers. Before businessman turned complainant in Asthana FIR, CBI wanted to arrest him Alok Verma outside the Home Ministry Tuesday. (Express Photo/Tashi Tobgyal) Is the government then empowered to act on such a recommendation by the CVC and send the CBI Director on leave? The Supreme Court will examine this question on Friday. In its landmark judgment in Vineet Narain & Others vs Union of India & Anr (1997), the court laid down legally binding procedures that the central government must follow regarding the removal of the CBI Director. The order said the Director shall have a minimum tenure of two years, and that a premature transfer “in an extraordinary situation… should have the approval of the Selection Committee”. In July 2013, the Manmohan Singh government said that the Director shall not be transferred “without the consent of Selection Committee”, and that “only President” would have the authority to “remove or suspend” the Director, on a reference by the CVC of “misbehaviour or incapacity”. In Verma’s case, the government has not taken the prior approval of the Selection Committee, nor has the CVC established his misbehaviour or incapacity. What plea has Verma taken before the Supreme Court? Verma has said that he was sent on leave after “certain investigations into high functionaries” did not take the direction that “may be desirable to the government”. Legally, he has challenged the government’s decision on the ground that it is contrary to Section 4B of the DSPE Act, which grants the Director a term of “not less than two years”. He has also argued that the order violates the legal provision that requires prior approval of the Committee comprising the PM, LOp and the CJI for the transfer of the Director. III. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/questions-over-interim-cbi-chief-nageshwar-raos-record-1937106?fbclid=IwAR1hoAF0gbMcSzn05rOQZIy4KyGuHtb7Gy9QtFuLOhq0_cXFXpzcJowvs3k Questions Over Interim CBI Chief Nageswar Rao's Record Amitabh Singh Dhillon, the head of the agency's counter-intelligence unit or Special Unit, had tabled an adverse report on the CBI official. All India | Written by Sunetra Choudhary | Updated: October 25, 2018 06:39 IST Nageswar Rao, a 1986-batch officer, had joined the CBI in 2015. NEW DELHI: HIGHLIGHTS CBI was headed by Anil Sinha when Nageswar Rao joined in 2015 Special Unit tabled report on Mr Rao on corruption charges against him Assessment ignored by Mr Sinha as well as the government In "cleaning up" the country's top probe agency, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) shunted out two top officials facing charges of corruption and appointed Nageswar Rao -- a relatively junior 1986-batch bureaucrat -- as the interim chief of the CBI. However, NDTV has now found that the new director has a chequered past himself. The CBI was headed by Anil Sinha when Mr Rao joined in 2015. Amitabh Singh Dhillon, the head of the agency's counter-intelligence unit or Special Unit, had then tabled an adverse report on Mr Rao -- saying that he should not be inducted on the grounds of corruption charges levelled against him and his alleged proximity to political parties. However, the assessment was ignored by Mr Sinha as well as the government. The corruption charges were related to the purchase of State Bank of India land by VGN Developers, a Chennai-based firm. According to the complaint, Mr Rao -- who was the then Chennai Zone head -- had not hauled up the accused despite the land being sold at a loss to the exchequer. This was one of the reasons for DMK leader MK Stalin criticising his elevation to the post of CBI Director. This, however, is not the only complaint filed against Mr Rao. While Mr Rao was serving as a joint director in the CBI earlier this year, a file titled "Premature repatriation of Shri Nageswar Rao, IPS'' (File no 202/01/2015) was sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security. It suggested that the official be sent back to Odisha in the light of several complaints, one of which he allegedly closed down in connivance with a senior Delhi official. According to the complaint, Mr Rao had allegedly tried to stall the probe against over 70 Income Tax (I-T) officers listed in arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari's diaries. Police had arrested Mr Bhandari along with I-T Joint Commissioner Sallong Yaden in January 2015, and incriminating evidence against several officials was allegedly recovered from his possession. Incidentally, the ruling BJP has accused Mr Bhandari of being close to Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress leader Sonia Gandhi. Mr Rao is also accused of misrepresenting facts in his annual tax returns. All his assets filings post-2010 show a Rs. 20-lakh property owned by his wife and her cousin in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The cousin -- Dr Ratna Babu -- was later revealed to be the brother of his wife, Chinnam Sandhya. Although senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan posted some of these allegations on Twitter, the CBI has refused to react. NDTV reached out to the CBI for a reaction, but did not get one. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
