English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

CBI row: Supreme Court questions Centre’s hurry to transfer Alok Verma, reserves judgment

Published

on

supreme-court

Hearings over, the Supreme Court today (Thursday, Dec 6) reserved its judgment on CBI Director Alok Verma’s plea challenging Modi government’s October 24 order divesting him of all powers and sending him on leave.

The Centre had sent him on leave along with his deputy, special director Rakesh Asthana against whom the CBI had registered a corruption case, while he had levelled similar allegations against his boss.

While hearing the plea Thursday, the three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph questioned the government’s sudden move on Oct 23-24 night when the circumstances leading to it had been present since July.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Gogoi also asked senior advocate Fali Nariman whether the Supreme Court, if necessary, can appoint a CBI Director.

Nariman, appearing for Verma, thought for a moment before replying that the court could indeed do so in exercise of its “inherent powers” as the final interpreter of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Gogoi then quizzed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), about its tearing hurry to divest Verma overnight on October 23.

“The situation which prompted the CVC to take action against Alok Verma did not start overnight on October 23 (the day Verma was divested as CBI Director)… you (CVC) had tolerated him for two months… So what was it that required you to take a decision ‘overnight’ on October 23?” Chief Justice Gogoi asked Mehta.

“Extraordinary situations do need extraordinary remedies. CVC’s superintendence (over the CBI) encompasses “surprise, extraordinary situations”… Two senior most CBI officers (Verma and Asthana) had turned against each other. Instead of probing cases, they were raiding each other, registering FIRs against each other. They may tamper evidence. This was a surprise situation!” Mehta said.

The court persisted, asking why neither the CVC nor the government chose to take prior approval from the high-powered committee led by the Prime Minister before divesting Verma before the end of his two-year tenure.

The government and the CVC have vehemently argued that there was no need to consult the panel.

“The essence of every good government administration is to do what is acceptable. Now, if there are two options available before the government – one acceptable and the other more acceptable – what stopped you from taking the more acceptable option?” Chief Justice Gogoi asked them.

The court indicated the government and CVC were yet to come out with a reason for not consulting the panel.

“Alok Verma had two years’ tenure and was recommended by this committee. So if you wanted to divest him of something, why did you not consult the committee?” Chief Justice asked.

Mehta replied that had CVC not acted to contain the turmoil within the top CBI brass, it would have been held accountable for “dereliction of its duty” of superintendence over the CBI.

CJI Gogoi countered, “Section 4 of DSPE Act, which controls the CBI functioning, says CVC superintendence over CBI is restricted to probes in corruption cases. Can Section 8 of CVC Act go beyond Section 4 of DSPE Act?”

Mehta responded that the superintendence powers were “wide and plenary.”

Mehta told the court that it was incumbent upon the CVC to act with urgency against Verma because the “top officers of the CBI were investigating cases against each other” and “inaction (on part of the vigilance panel) would have been held as dereliction of duty”.

The Solicitor General said that the order to divest Verma (and also Rakesh Asthana) “was a reasoned one” and was “passed impartially”, adding that the CVC is answerable to the Executive and could have been made answerable to the Legislature “but I can only be answerable to Your Lordships if somebody comes and says to you that the CVC is not performing its functions.”

Mehta added that the decision to divest Verma of his charge was only an “interim measure” and did not amount to his transfer or suspension.

Responding to Nariman’s argument that ‘divestment’ of Verma amounted to his ‘transfer’ and this should not have been done without the prior approval of the panel, Mehta argued, “The word ‘transfer’ would mean a person is divested permanently from one place and invested permanently in an equivalent position in another place… On October 23, considering the seriousness of the allegations, we decided to do something (divestment) which was less than a transfer.”

He said unlike a transfer, divestment has no finality. “Here they (Verma and Asthana) have been asked to keep away from the office till CVC/government takes a call on them,” Mehta submitted.

Concluding his arguments, Mehta told the court that the CVC annual report was full of instances where the panel had taken action against CBI officials, adding that the decision against Verma wasn’t the first of its kind.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, who had concluded his arguments on behalf of the Centre during the proceedings on Wednesday, made some additional contentions after Mehta’s submissions. Responding to the Chief Justice’s slew of questions to Mehta on why the selection committee was not consulted before the decision was taken against Verma, Venugopal said that even if the matter had first been referred to the selection panel, its response would have been “this is not a transfer matter, so why place it before us.” The Attorney General said that Verma’s claim that the action against him was akin to a transfer was based on a “highly artificial” premise.

With submissions of all those opposing Verma’s petition over, his counsel, senior advocate Fali Nariman, began his rejoinder to the arguments placed before the bench.

Nariman rejected the contention of the respondents that the action against Verma did not amount to his transfer and that he continues to be the investigation agency’s chief. Arguing that transfer must not just mean sending an officer from one place to the other, Nariman said that a two-year tenure means that the incumbent must continue to have powers of the agency’s chief and “not just a visiting card and title.”

Nariman said that in the extant case, transfer should not be construed in its literal, ordinary sense, adding that “there is a law dictionary and an English dictionary… this matter is not about pay, perks and facilities as pointed out by the respondents (the Centre and the CVC)… what is the point if I am not allowed to perform my duties but have a two year tenure?”

Verma’s counsel said that the CBI director had been replaced by an interim chief in M Nageswara Rao. Nariman said that soon after Rao took over, he transferred a slew of officers who were probing Asthana. The senior advocate said that since all responsibilities of Verma as the CBI director had evidently been taken over by Rao, the Centre’s decision to send Verma on leave should be seen as a transfer order.

There can’t be an acting Chief Justice of India and likewise there can’t be an acting director of the CBI,” Nariman submitted.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for an NGO that has sought reversal of the Centre’s order, made similar submissions and insisted that while the CVC is mandated under law to have superintendence over the CBI in cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it could not replace the CBI director.

Dave said that the mechanism of a selection committee to appoint the CBI director was a safeguard given by law and that the Parliament had not imagined that such a situation that arose in Verma’s case (where the CBI director and special director were involved in a public spat) and that the submissions made by the respondents – the Centre and the CVC – portrayed a dichotomy wherein each of them was claiming to have the power to divest the CBI chief of his charge.

Slamming the CVC, Dave told the court that the vigilance panel adopted different standards on similar facts while acting against Verma and Asthana. “The CVC rubbished the allegations against Asthana at the time of his appointment and said they can’t be acted upon unless proved. But in case of Verma, they acted promptly, without waiting for allegations to be proved,” Dave said, adding that the CVC must be scrupulously objective at all times.

Countering Attorney General KK Venugopal’s argument that the selection panel for the CBI director becomes redundant once the appointment has been made, Dave said: “the Attorney General submitted that the committee became functus officio but my submission is that it is the government that has become functus officio (with regard to appointment and transfer of the CBI director), in light of Section 4 (1) of the DSPE Act once the CBI chief is appointed.”

“You may call it (the action against Verma) suspension or transfer but the fact remains that the post of the CBI director is untouchable in the absence of a reference or approval of the selection committee,” Dave said, adding that there was “no exigency for the respondent to pass such an order at 2 hours past midnight… there is much more than meets the eye… Verma was being stopped from doing something.”

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who is a member of the selection committee also comprising of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India, told the bench that if the arguments of the respondents are accepted then it would amount to giving unbridled powers to the Centre vis-à-vis the CBI chief’s appointment and effectively nullify the top court’s landmark Vineet Narain verdict.

The court also heard submissions by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for CBI officer AK Bassi who has challenged his transfer to Port Blair soon after the government divested Verma of his charge.

Bassi was heading the SIT constituted by Verma to investigate six cases of corruption against Rakesh Asthana. However, hours after M Nageswara Rao replaced Verma as the interim CBI chief, he transferred Bassi and all other members of the SIT probing Asthana, out of Delhi. Dhavan, however, limited his submissions on the action against Verma, stating that the Centre’s decision had turned the CBI upside down.

With arguments and rejoinders concluded, the bench reserved its order on Verma’s petition.

Verma’s two year term as CBI director is due to end on January 18. It now remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court reverses the Centre’s decision to divest Verma of his charge, and if it does, will Verma return to his job with a vengeance, expediting ongoing probes against Asthana and other sensitive cases, including one into the Rafale deal, which he was looking into when the Centre abruptly sent him on leave.

Health

Sadhguru’s 30% diet challenge: Spiritual leader explains how eating more fruits can transform your digestion and mental clarity

Sadhguru’s 30% diet challenge urges people to eat more fresh fruits daily. From better digestion to steady energy, here’s how this change can improve your life.

Published

on

Sadhguru 30% diet challenge

Renowned spiritual leader and yogi, Sadhguru, has long advocated for a holistic approach to health. One of his standout dietary principles is the “30% diet challenge”, which encourages people to consume at least 30% of their daily food intake in the form of fresh fruits. According to Sadhguru, fruits are not just nutritious—they play a pivotal role in enhancing energy, improving digestion, and promoting mental clarity.

Why Sadhguru recommends 30% fruits in your diet

The idea behind the 30% diet challenge is simple: fuel the body with foods that are easy to digest and rich in vital nutrients. Fruits, according to Sadhguru, are among the cleanest and most energy-efficient foods. Unlike processed or heavy meals that can burden the digestive system, fruits are light, quick to metabolize, and help the body function optimally.

He explains that this dietary shift is not merely about maintaining physical fitness but also about reducing the risk of chronic conditions and staying mentally alert.

Health benefits: From detox to disease prevention

Fruits are rich in natural sugars, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, making them a powerhouse for overall health. Sadhguru notes that fruits help the body detoxify naturally, support organ health, and reduce the strain on vital systems like the liver and kidneys. He also suggests that regular fruit consumption can enhance blood circulation, reduce inflammation and also lower the risk of conditions such as diabetes, thyroid imbalances, and hypertension

Fruits for energy and mental alertness

Sadhguru often draws attention to how different types of food affect one’s mental state. He says that fruits, due to their natural sugars and clean-burning properties, provide sustained energy without causing blood sugar spikes. Unlike heavy meals that can make one sluggish, fruits help keep the body light and the mind sharp.

How to make fruits a daily habbit

Incorporating 30% fruits into your meals doesn’t require drastic lifestyle changes. Here are some practical ways to adopt this approach:

Start your day with fruits: A bowl of mixed seasonal fruits makes for a nourishing breakfast.

Snack smart: Replace processed snacks with fresh fruit options like bananas, apples, or oranges.

Smoothie switch: Blend fruits into smoothies for a filling, nutritious drink.

Go seasonal: Eating fruits that are in season ensures maximum nutrition and freshness.

Empty stomach advantage: For better absorption, consume fruits on an empty stomach, especially in the morning.

Continue Reading

India News

Tamil Nadu’s NEET exemption bill rejected by President, CM Stalin calls it insult to federalism

Tamil Nadu’s NEET exemption bill has been rejected by the Centre. CM Stalin criticises the move, calls for an all-party meet, and vows legal recourse.

Published

on

Mk Stalin on NEET exemption bill

In a major blow to Tamil Nadu’s prolonged campaign against the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), the union government has rejected the state’s NEET exemption bill. The bill, passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly twice — in 2021 and 2022 — sought to permit medical admissions based on Class 12 marks instead of the centralised NEET exam.

Chief Minister MK Stalin informed the Assembly on Friday that President Droupadi Murmu has turned down the bill, calling it an “insult” to the southern state and a setback for federal values.

Stalin slams Centre, calls for all-party meet

Responding to the rejection, Stalin criticised the Centre’s stance and labelled the move a “black phase in federalism.” He asserted that the Tamil Nadu government had provided all required clarifications on the bill but the Centre “chose to reject it” regardless.

Stalin announced that an all-party meeting of MLAs will be convened on April 9 to decide on further action. “The union government may have rejected our request, but our struggle is far from over,” he said, adding that the state would explore legal avenues to challenge the decision.

Social justice at the heart of Tamil Nadu’s demand

Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEET has been rooted in concerns over equity and access. The state government argues that the centralised exam favours students from affluent families who can afford private coaching, thus widening the inequality in medical education.

Instead, Tamil Nadu has advocated for admissions based on Class 12 marks, which it believes is a more equitable approach ensuring social justice.

NEET under scrutiny across states

The controversy around NEET extends beyond Tamil Nadu. Last year, West Bengal passed a resolution opposing the centralised exam. Several national opposition leaders, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav, have also criticised the NEET system, especially in the wake of exam paper leak allegations and student suicides linked to the intense pressure surrounding the test.

Though the Supreme Court dismissed pleas for re-tests, citing no breach of exam sanctity, calls for reform in the NEET structure have been growing louder.

Continue Reading

India News

Bokaro Steel Plant CGM arrested after CISF action leaves one dead, political outrage sparks demand for probe

A protest at Bokaro Steel Plant over employment demands turned tragic after a fatal lathi charge. The plant’s CGM was arrested and compensation has been announced.

Published

on

Jharkhand protest

A senior official of Jharkhand’s Bokaro Steel Plant was arrested after a protest demanding employment turned tragic on Thursday, leaving one dead.

The incident occurred when CISF personnel, responsible for plant security, allegedly resorted to a lathi charge to disperse the demonstrators from the ‘BSL Visthapit Apprentice Sangh’.

The deceased, a 26-year-old man, succumbed to injuries sustained during the clash near the administrative building of the plant. The protestors had gathered to press for employment opportunities for displaced individuals.

CGM held accountable, ex-gratia compensation announced

Following the fatal incident, Bokaro Deputy Commissioner Jadhav Vijaya Narayan Rao held the Chief General Manager (CGM) of the plant responsible for the death. The CGM was subsequently arrested, as confirmed by an official statement from the district administration.

In response to the public outrage, Bokaro Steel Plant announced an ex-gratia compensation of Rs 20 lakh for the family of the deceased. Additionally, a promise of employment for one of the family members has also been made.

Clashes during protest turn violent

According to police, the demonstration was organized under the banner of ‘BSL Visthapit Apprentice Sangh’ near the plant’s administrative office. The protest was initially peaceful, demanding employment assurances. However, tensions escalated when the CISF, allegedly trying to disperse the crowd, used batons on the agitators.

A CISF official stated that some personnel were injured after being attacked with stones and sticks by protestors. Four CISF members reportedly sustained injuries during the confrontation.

Political parties demand action and probe

The incident has sparked political outrage across the state. On Friday, members of political outfits like the AJSU Party and JLKM held demonstrations in Bokaro condemning the lathi charge. Jharkhand BJP President Babulal Marandi demanded a detailed inquiry into the matter and urged the state government to take stringent action against the Bokaro administration and BSL management.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com