English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court fumes at leak of CBI director Alok Verma’s reply, puts off hearing to Nov 29

Published

8 years ago

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Hearing of the CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma’s plea challenging the government’s decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave was put off for Nov 29 with the Supreme Court expressing its annoyance at the leak of confidential details related to the case and lamenting the evident lack of respect for the institution.

The court held the CBI director responsible for selective leaks of Central Vigilance Commission’s (CVC) report on corruption charges against him and his response to it, both of which were confidential documents submitted in the court in sealed covers.

When on Tuesday (November 20) morning, the bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph resumed hearing the case – on Monday it had said it did not want to delay it when CBI director Verma’s counsel senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan sought more time for filing his reply to CVC report – it asked Verma’s lead counsel, senior advocate Fali S Nariman, how confidential details related to the case were being published by sections of the media.

Nariman told the bench that the leaks were “unauthorised” and that the court could “summon the editors” for further information.

The ‘leak’ reportedly referred to an article published by online news portal The Wire which had reproduced excerpts of Verma’s response to a questionnaire he was given by the CVC during the two weeks that it conducted a court-monitored probe against the CBI chief under supervision of retired Supreme Court judge, Justice AK Patnaik.

The CVC inquiry was been initiated under four broad categories of complaints made against Verma by his deputy, Rakesh Asthana, who, along with Verma, was also been divested of his responsibilities as CBI special director by the central government.

The Supreme Court had earlier remarked that the findings of the CVC were “very complimentary on some of the charges” made out against Verma but also “not so complimentary and very uncomplimentary” on other charges.

The Chief Justice also told Nariman that the bench wasn’t happy at the manner in which senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan had approached the court, on Monday (November 19), seeking additional time to file Verma’s reply to the CVC inquiry report. The bench had, last week, granted Verma time till November 19 (1 P.M) to file his reply to the inquiry report.

Sankarnarayanan had approached the bench on Monday morning seeking an extension of the deadline following which the court had directed that the reply must be filed by 4 P.M the same day. Verma’s reply was submitted to the Supreme Court’s registry in a sealed cover a couple of hours later.

After the Chief Justice expressed on Tuesday that he was not happy with Sankarnarayanan approaching the bench for additional time, Nariman claimed that the request had not been authorised by him as Verma’s lead counsel and that he had got to know of the development only through the media.

Evidently miffed at the manner in which leaks related to the case were happening in the media, Chief Justice Gogoi adjourned the hearing in the case till November 29, admonishing counsels for all parties in the case, stating: “we don’t think any of you deserve any hearing.”

Shortly after the bench adjourned the matter, Nariman approached the Chief Justice and apologised for the goings-on that had upset the court, reported India Legal. The senior advocate then asked the Chief Justice to grant him some time to make certain clarifications.

Thereafter, as Nariman, Sankarnarayanan and an advocate-on-record apparently engaged by Verma for the case appeared before the bench, Chief Justice Gogoi said: “We are unable to help you due to the inefficiency of the counsel. We want to know what is going on. This is a place for adjudication of legal rights, not a platform for people to come and express anything they want. We will set it right.”

The Chief Justice, referring to CBI director Alok Verma, said: “We expressed that highest degree of confidentiality must be maintained and this litigant (the CBI director) takes the papers and shares them with everyone. Our respect for this institution is not shared by anyone for some strange reason.”

Nariman sought to pacify the bench by stating that the article published by The Wire was about Verma’s response to the CVC questionnaire during the course of the investigation and that this response was not covered by the confidentiality order of the top court, which was specifically on the final inquiry report and Verma’s response to it – both documents currently under perusal of the bench.

Nariman asserted that there had been “no violation of the SC order”.

Senior advocate Sankarnarayanan then approached the bench stating: “I would like to clear my name”. Earlier in the day, Nariman had told the bench that Sankarnarayanan had not been authorised to approach the bench on Monday for seeking an extension for filing Verma’s response to the CVC inquiry report.

While the bench declined to hear Sankarnarayanan’s clarification, another advocate-on-record (AoR) who had previously appeared for Verma told the bench that the CBI chief had authorised her and Sankarnarayanan to seek the extension.

This set off a spat between Nariman and Sankarnarayanan. While Sankarnarayanan insisted that he had been authorised by Verma to appear for him in the case, Nariman responded saying: Don’t tell me what to do… I have experience of 67 years.”

The Chief Justice then made it clear to the sparring lawyers that it was not inclined to hear anyone except Nariman. Nariman told the court that the mentioning done by Sankarnarayanan was wrong. “Nothing is mentioned in the court if a senior is involved,” Nariman said, adding that as Verma’s lead counsel, he had not authorised Sankarnarayanan to appear before the bench on Monday and ask for an extension of the deadline to file the CBI chief’s response to the CVC inquiry report.

The bench then also noted its displeasure over the publication of the petition filed by senior CBI officer MK Sinha challenging his transfer from the SIT probe into corruption cases against Rakesh Asthana.

Sinha was among a slew of officers who were probing Asthana and were transferred hours after the Centre ordered Verma and Asthana to go on leave on October 24. Interim CBI chief M Nageswara Rao had transferred all officers probing Asthana out of Delhi. Each of these officers has now filed separate petitions before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court challenging their transfers and each plea has made specific and startling claims not just about the affairs within the CBI but also against high ranking officials in the Prime Minister’s Office – including National Security Advisor Ajit Doval – and a junior minister in the union council.

Sinha’s petition, filed earlier this week alleges that Doval was trying to shield Asthana in the corruption cases being investigated against the CBI special director. This was reported widely in the media.

Much of what Sinha mentions in his petition is the same as what Verma has explained in his confidential reply to the CVC inquiry report, sources told India legal. Verma’s detractors have been claiming that since he could not violate the SC’s confidentiality order that prohibited him from sharing details of his response to the CVC inquiry report with the press, he got Sinha to file a petition that made the same claims, knowing that the press would lap it up owing to the grave allegations made in it.

With all these shenanigans happening in the case that gets murkier by the day, it remains to be seen how it progresses and which way it goes.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Case registered against Mamata Banerjee over controversial 2025 religion remark

A formal police case has been registered against Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee in Siliguri, West Bengal. The complaint alleges that her 2025 “Ganda Dharm” remark targeted Hinduism and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Published

1 hour ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

Mamata Banerjee

A formal police complaint has been lodged against Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal’s Siliguri. The legal action stems from an alleged derogatory remark regarding Hinduism made during an Eid congregation in Kolkata in 2025.

The case was registered following a complaint filed by a local lawyer, Rinki Chatterjee, who alleged that the former Chief Minister’s comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus globally.

Legal charges and complaint details

The police have invoked multiple sections under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Banerjee, including Section 351(1) for criminal intimidation, Section 352 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and Section 353 for promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different communities.

According to the complaint, the controversy traces back to an Eid event organized on Kolkata’s iconic Red Road in 2025. While delivering a speech targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Banerjee purportedly referred to the version of Hinduism championed by the political rival as “Ganda Dharm” (filthy religion).

Chatterjee stated in her complaint that labeling Sanatan Dharma in such a manner at a religious gathering was “absolutely unacceptable”. The complainant also pointed to other instances where senior TMC leaders allegedly targeted Hinduism, adding that Banerjee made indirect threats to the Hindu community during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign to influence voters through intimidation.

Political responses to the FIR

The reported statements had previously drawn sharp criticism from the state BJP leadership last year, including strong objections from current Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari. However, this FIR represents the first formal legal action taken regarding the speech.

When approached for a response, Atri Sharma, a lawyer and general secretary of the TMC’s Darjeeling unit, declined to comment officially as a party spokesperson. However, he noted that many within the party internal circles found the remarks inappropriate at the time they were spoken. Sharma acknowledged that holding a high public office required restraint and affirmed that every individual holds the moral right to pursue legal remedies.

Continue Reading

India News

Enforcement Directorate raids former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence in money laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday carried out searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and 11 other locations in connection with a money-laundering probe registered in 2024.

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

The Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday conducted extensive searches at the Thiruvananthapuram residence of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The action comes as part of an ongoing money-laundering investigation, with the central probe agency executing simultaneous raids at 12 separate locations across the state under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Broad Crackdown in Financial Probe

The central agency’s operations focused significantly on Vijayan’s rented residence in the state capital, alongside eleven other locations, including premises in Kochi, Kozhikode, Kannur, and Bengaluru. This major enforcement action was initiated shortly after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday, which had been filed by Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL) seeking to quash the ongoing ED proceedings.

The roots of the financial investigation trace back to a PMLA case registered in 2024. The core allegation involves an estimated illegal payment of ₹1.72 crore made between 2017 and 2019 by a private entity, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.

According to investigators, the financial transactions took place despite the IT firm allegedly rendering no services to the private company. Apart from the financial probe agency’s scrutiny, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also independently conducting an inquiry into the wider financial transactions of the matter.

Political Developments

The searches also covered locations linked to other political and executive figures associated with the matter, including premises connected to senior CMRL executives. While the ruling party has previously described the investigations as politically motivated, the central agency has intensified its probe following the high court’s refusal to grant interim relief to the private firm. The case has sparked intense political debate, with opposition parties using the findings to allege financial irregularities, while local party leaders maintain that the transactions were part of a legitimate business arrangement.

Continue Reading

India News

IPL 2026 Qualifier 1: Rajat Patidar, Virat Kohli shatter playoff records as RCB crush GT to reach final

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru advanced to their second consecutive IPL final after a historic 92-run demolition of Gujarat Titans in Qualifier 1, powered by Rajat Patidar’s breathtaking 93*

Published

2 hours ago

on

May 27, 2026

By

Defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) created history in the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 Qualifier 1 against Gujarat Titans (GT), sealing their spot in a second consecutive final with a clinical 92-run victory on Tuesday.

Riding on captain Rajat Patidar’s blistering, unbeaten 93 off just 33 balls, Bengaluru piled up a colossal 254 for 5 in their 20 overs after being asked to bat first at the scenic Dharamsala stadium. The monumental total surpassed the previous playoff benchmark of 233 for 3, set by GT against Mumbai Indians in 2023, making it the highest-ever score in IPL playoff history. In response, a ruthless RCB bowling assault dismantled the Gujarat Titans batting line-up, bowling them out for 162 in 19.3 overs.

Patidar blitzkrieg anchors historic RCB innings

After GT skipper Shubman Gill won the toss and opted to field, RCB’s top order asserted early dominance by racing to 76 for 1 within the powerplay. Venkatesh Iyer provided a quickfire 19 off seven balls, while Devdutt Padikkal struck 30 off 19 deliveries to set a brisk tempo.

The foundation allowed Virat Kohli to maintain the middle-order momentum with a fluent 43 off 25 balls. With this knock, Kohli carved out another historic milestone, becoming the first player in IPL history to accumulate over 600 runs in four consecutive seasons. Jason Holder briefly checked RCB’s charge by removing both Kohli and Padikkal in the 10th over to leave them at 99 for 3.

However, skipper Rajat Patidar took complete control from there on. Surviving two dropped catches early on, Patidar launched a brutal counter-attack, smashing five fours and nine towering sixes at an astonishing strike rate of 281.81. He combined forces with Krunal Pandya, who played a crucial anchoring role with 43 off 28 balls, putting together a blistering 90-run partnership. Patidar turned particularly merciless in the death overs, hammering a massive over from Kulwant Khejroliya as RCB finished their death overs on an absolute high.

Gujarat Titans collapse under scoreboard pressure

Faced with a steep mountain to climb, the Gujarat Titans chase imploded right from the start, losing five wickets inside the powerplay against a lethal pace battery. Openers Sai Sudharsan and skipper Shubman Gill were dismissed in the third and fourth overs respectively.

Sudharsan, the tournament’s leading run-scorer, suffered a bizarre and unfortunate dismissal when his bat slipped during a cut shot, knocking back his own stumps to be out hit-wicket off Jacob Duffy. Gill followed shortly after, cleaned up by an excellent delivery from Bhuvneshwar Kumar.

Jos Buttler offered a brief, aggressive resistance by hitting four boundaries and two sixes in a quick 29, but Australian pacer Josh Hazlewood exacted quick revenge by clean-bowling him in the fifth over. From a precarious position, the Titans slipped further as Jacob Duffy tore through the middle order, dismissing Washington Sundar and Rashid Khan.

Rahul Tewatia was the lone warrior for the Titans, waging a solitary battle to smash a fighting 68. His aggressive hitting brought up the team’s hundred in the 13th over and dragged the side past the 150-mark. However, the target proved far too distant. Krunal Pandya claimed the final wicket in the final over, dismissing GT’s tailender Mohammed Siraj—who was caught by Tim David—to bundle out GT for 162, securing the second-largest victory margin in IPL playoff history for RCB.

While RCB marches straight into the grand finale with ultimate momentum, Gujarat Titans remain alive in the tournament. They will get another opportunity to reach the final when they play the winner of the Eliminator clash between Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals in Qualifier 2.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com