New Delhi: Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge sent a two-page dissent note to the prime minister after the government announced the name of the 1983 batch officer and former Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police, Rishi Kumar Shukla, as the new CBI Director.
 
He was a part of the three-member committee formed to choose the new CBI Director and had protested against the selection of Shukla as the chief of the investigative agency. In his dissent note, the Leader of Opposition had argued that the officer lacked “experience in anti-corruption cases” and alleged that the criterion for selection was diluted in violation of law and Supreme Court judgements.
 
Shukla was removed as DGP of Madhya Pradesh only three days ago by the new Congress government in the state. His name was chosen from a shortlist of over 30 contenders for the top post by a committee that comprised of Mr Kharge, PM Modi and Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
 
Mr Kharge also alleged in his dissent note that the committee had violated the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE) that governs the CBI by including officers who didn’t have experience in anti-corruption cases.
 
“By including officers who do not have experience in investigating anti-corruption cases, the committee is in violation of DSPE Act and Supreme Court judgements guiding CBI Director’s appointment,” he said in the note.
 
“Seniority cannot be the only criterion in appointment to such a critical post and experience in anti-corruption cases and prior experience of having served in the organisation should also be considered,” he added.
 
The selection committee had met a few times to finalise the candidate for the post of CBI Director. The vital post had been vacant following an unceremonious exit of previous CBI chief Alok Verma, who was removed last month by the committee led by PM Modi.
 
Verma was transferred to the Fire Services as Director-General after the panel said that as CBI chief, he had “not acted with the integrity expected of him”.
 
Kharge had dissented on the decision of the panel, saying the vigilance inquiry had not found evidence that Verma was guilty of bribery.
 
The new CBI chief Rishi Kumar Shukla, 58, is at present the chairman of the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation. Although Shukla has never been part of the CBI, he had served in the Intelligence Bureau where he handled several sensitive cases. He is said to be close to National Security Advisor Ajit Doval.
 
Meanwhile, Union Minister Jitendra Singh said it was Mr Kharge who tried to manipulate the criteria.
 
“Kharge tried to manipulate the objective criteria, based on independent and impartial assessment, to select CBI Director…He wanted to include some officers of his preference in the short-list of candidates,” he told PTI.
 
Union minister Arun Jaitley accused Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge of excessive dissent and making the appointment of the Central Bureau of Investigation director look like a political battle on Sunday. Kharge had failed to leave his “political colour” while on a panel to select the director, Jaitley had said.
 
In a Facebook post titled “Has Mr Kharge Brought Down The Value Of Dissent,” Jaitley wrote that “Kharge dissents regularly.”
 

The post Why did Mallikarjun Kharge dissent to the new CBI director’s appointment? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Congress, meanwhile, is staging an agitation, led by party chief Rahul Gandhi, outside the agency’s headquarters against the government’s move. On Thursday, Rahul hit out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, terming the Centre’s as a “panic reaction” by the PM who knew that he would be “finished” if the CBI began an inquiry into the Rafale fighter jet deal.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to Centre in petition by Alok Verma and Common Cause challenging leave order by Central government. Most significantly, the Interim Director of CBI M Nagehswar Rao should not take any major policy decision, orders Supreme Court and all decisions taken by M Nageshwar Rao from October 23 to be submitted in sealed cover to SC.
 
The next hearing will be on November 12.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan who has been spear heading this battle tweeted:

“SC virtually disables the new Dir CBI, Nageshwar Rao appointed by the govt by replacing Verma & restrained him from taking any major or policy decision. All decisions taken by him under scanner. The enquiry by CVC against Verma will be supervised by retd SC judge & done in 2 weeks”

Read about the Controversial Officer hand-picked by the PMO under Narendra Modi to head the CBI here.

The post SC to the Rescue, CVC Report to be Scrutinised: CBI Controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to existing rules, the government is dutifully bound to get the CVC’s approval to reduce the tenure of any CBI officer.

Curiously, Dutta was a part of the team that investigated the 2G and coal block allocation scams. The apex court had asked the Centre to seek its permission before transferring the officers associated with these two cases. But this has not been followed in Dutta’s case.

The petition, filed by the NGO, had alleged that the Centre took a series of steps in a “completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner to ensure that Asthana was given the charge of CBI director”.

It has claimed that the government did not convene a meeting of the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest opposition party and the Chief Justice of India, even though it was fully aware that Anil Sinha was going to demit the office of CBI director on 2 December.
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan had filed a PIL against the “mala fide non-appointment” and giving additional charge to Rakesh Asthana”.

Asthana, an IPS officer of 1984-batch, was elevated as the Additional Director in the agency on 2 December when CBI Special Director R K Dutta, who was reportedly among the frontrunners for the top post, was shifted to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as a Special Secretary.

(With additional inputs from India Today)

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter
 

The post Supreme Court wants Modi govt to explain Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as CBI director appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
With the PMO (prime minister’s office) appointing Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, as the interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation—violating rules and norms—that has already attracted legal action challenging the move, the Delhi-based CBI today resembles a ‘little Gujarat’ or the Gujarat Bureau of Investigation! Last year, Arun Kumar Sharma, an India Police Service officer from the 1987 batch, with a controversial record was transferred to the CBI as one of its joint directors.  Not only that, showing a clear ‘conflict of interest’, YC Modi who was part of the Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation tream (SIT) headed by none less than lack lustre former Director, RK Raghavan, was also brought in by Narendra Modi to the CBI last year. [While, according to the CBI website the former is in charge of the BS&F Zone: BS&F Delhi. BS&F Kolkata, BS&F Mumbai, BS&F Bangalore, the latter is AC(HQ)-I Zone, AC(HQ)-I Zone, SC(HQ) Zone, Mumbai Zone, Hyderabad Zone, Bhopal Zone]]
 
On December 6, a Public-Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking quashing of government's decision of appointing Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, as the interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The PIL also seeks appointment of a Court-selected person as the interim Director of CBI as well as a meeting of the selection committee, which consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the largest Opposition party and the Chief Justice of India, to appoint a regular director of the probe agency.

Gujarat-cadre 1984 batch officer Rakesh Asthana's elevation as interim director of CBI has been termed  as one of a series of steps by the Centre taken in a “completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner to ensure that Asthana was given the charge of CBI director“. As per the plea, the government did not convene a meeting of the selection committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the largest opposition party and the chief justice of India, even though it was fully aware that Anil Sinha was going to demit the office of CBI director on December 2.

The PIL further states that the government took a series of steps in a "completely mala fide,arbitrary and illegal manner to ensure that Rakesh Asthana was given the charge of CBI Director and "prematurely curtailed the tenure of and transferred Mr. R K Dutta,Special Director, CBI, to the Ministry of Home Affairs". The PIL has been filed by Kamal Kant Jaswal, the president of Delhi based Common Cause through his counsel Prashant Bhushan.

The PIL cited the landmark judgment in Vineet Narain case in which the court had directed that there should be a selection committee to identify a panel of names for the appointment of Director CBI, and thereafter the final selection to be made by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC).The PIL also cited that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, , which governs the CBI, was amended in 2003 vide the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, 2003 to state that the Director CBI shall be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the Vigilance Commissioners and two Secretaries to the Government of India.

"As the above mechanism was not found sufficient to insulate the CBI Director, Section 4A of the DSPE Act, 1946 was further amended vide the Lokpal andLokayuktas Act, 2013 (the Lokpal Act) to provide that the CBI Director shall be appointed by the Central Government on there commendations of the selection committee," the PIL read.

The central government had last week made Asthana, a Gujarat cadre 1984 batch IPS officer, the interim director as the current chief probe agency Anil Sinha relinquished his charge. The decision came two days after CBI Special Director R K Dutta, who was among the frontrunners for the top post, was shifted to the Home Ministry as a Special Secretary leaving the agency without a director for the first time in 10 years. The move has been speculated to be aimed at making it easy for Asthana to slip into this powerful position!

Asthana,who was serving as the additional director of the probe agency had previously headed the state SIT that probed burning of Sabarmati Express train at Godhra in February 2002. The SIT had then found that the burning of a coach of Sabarmati Express, which claimed lives of 59 people, was a "carefully planned and meticulously executed criminal conspiracy". 

 Caged Modi Parrot, the CBI ?
The Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) fond of using the ‘caged parrot’ analogy for the CBI when several investigations against BJP strongman Amit Shah were launched by the agency under the orders of the Supreme Court of India (in and around 2010), appears to have no qualms of getting amenable officers into the powerful federal agency.
 
Scroll. In had reported how the Central Bureau of Investigation was then under pressure to hand over its highly sensitive Policy Division to the Gujarat police official whose name featured in the Ishrat Jahan encounter as well as the case involving the alleged spying on a woman architect when Narendra Modi was the chief minister of the state, highly placed officials said.

Arun Kumar Sharma, an India Police Service officer from the 1987 batch, was transferred to the CBI as one of its joint directors in April 2015. But he was not given any charge for a while. According to highly placed officials, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sent a clear signal to the CBI that Sharma should be given the charge of the Policy Division. But CBI director Anil Sinha, who is opposed to the idea, has refused to do this. Now with Asthana in the driver's seat, a change as per Modi's wishes could well take place.

The CBI insiders see in these Modi’s moves attempts to establish a direct channel with the supposedly autonomous investigative agency. “For a Prime Minister who has established his own direct link in different ministries through the secretary and joint secretary level officials bypassing ministers, it is only natural to try opening up a direct channel with the CBI bypassing its director,” said a CBI official.

Encounter case
Sharma’s name had appeared on a CD purporting to contain details of discussions between top Gujarat leaders and police officials to derail the investigations into the Gujarat police killing of Mumbai college student Ishrat Jahan in 2004. They claimed that she and the three men shot dead with her were on their way to Gujarat to kill Modi. The CD, which was submitted to the CBI by chargesheeted police officer GL Singhal, contained details of a meeting between Modi’s personal secretary GC Murmu, Sharma and a few other Gujarat ministers and policemen.

Sharma also featured in the claimed operation to illegally snoop on a young woman architect from Bangalore in 2009. The snooping had reportedly been ordered by minister of state for home Amit Shah for his “saheb”. Neither Amit Shah nor any of the police officials involved in the snooping operation has come out to explain who this “sahib” is. According to a senior BJP official in Gujarat, Sharma was very close to Modi when he was the state chief minister. Before being appointed as the CBI joint director in April, he headed Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch as special commissioner, a post created for the first time. Sharma, an IPS officer was IG (Intelligence) in the state in 2013 when Cobrapost and Gulail.com report on what has come to be known as ‘Snoopgate.’ Audiotapes released in the public domain claimed that the Gujarat police was used to conduct illegal surveillance on the movement of a Bangalore-based architect of Gujarati origin. Amit Shah was allegedly overseeing this surveillance
 
The Outlook had also reported last year how old loyalists from Gujarat were and are being rewarded with the bureau’s top posts; it won’t be long before one of them becomes director. “Can a prime minister or ruling party be faulted for stuffing a ‘caged bird’ with men they trust, notwithstanding their public pronouncements to the contrary? The answer lies in the shrugs and knowing smiles CBI insiders give you in response to the appointment of Y.C. Modi as additional director and Arun Kumar Sharma as joint director at India’s “premier investigation agency” in the last two months.

Belonging to the Assam-Meghalaya cadre, Y.C. Modi was part of the CBI team which investigated the Haren Pandya murder case. Pandya, a former home minister of Gujarat and a political rival of Narendra Modi, was gunned down in a park in Gandhinagar by alleged extremists in 2003. Pandya’s family, however, pointed fingers elsewhere and accused the CBI of derailing the investigation. The investigation by the CBI in the Haren Pandya case has been criticised by the Gujarat High Court.

The Gujarat High Court in 2011 acquitted 12 persons in the Pandya murder case and criticised the CBI for a “botched-up and blinkered investigation”. The judgement went on to these scathing words: “The investigating officers concerned ought to be held accountable for their ineptitude resulting in injustice, huge harassment of many persons concerned and enormous waste of public resources and time of the courts”.

The officer’s Gujarat connection was renewed in 2010 when he was inducted into the Special Investigation Team headed by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan to investigate the Gujarat riots. Giving a clean chit to the then Gujarat CM, the SIT felt there was not enough evidence to prove that Narendra Modi had either not done enough to stop the post-Godhra riots or had given oral instructions to officers to do nothing to stop the rampaging mobs. Was it a curious coincidence, the magazine had asked that YC Modi had investigated the three most important cases involving the post-Godhra violence, namely Gulberg society, Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaam. The SIT investigation into these cases has been found to be far from professional by the Courts. Modi was also involved in the famed Zakia Jafri investigation in which, while the Raghavan-headed SIT has refused to charge sheet powerful politicians and bureaucrats but in which the amicus curaie appointed by the Supreme court, senior advocate, Raju Ramachandran had opined that there was enough evidence to prosecute the former chief minister of Gujarat.
 

The post With Asthana as Interim CBI Chief, CBI Resembles the Gujarat Bureau of Investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.