The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice in a plea by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an NGO, that has challenged Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner. The SC has now sought replies from the Centre and Rakesh Asthana.

Asthana is a 1984-batch Gujarat cadre officer and was deputed to Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre on July 27 this year, when he was also granted an extension of service for a period of one year beyond his date of retirement, which was previously July 31, 2021. The extension means he will remain Delhi CP till at least July 31, 2022, unless transferred to another post.

CPIL filed a writ petition and an appeal against the appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner just four days before his superannuation on July 31. The plea challenges a Delhi High Court order which upheld the Centre’s decision to appoint the senior IPS officer as Delhi Police Commissioner. On October 12, the Delhi HC had said there was “no irregularity, illegality or infirmity” in his selection.

On Friday, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna issued notice to the Centre and Asthana, and sought their response on the plea by the NGO, stated news reports. Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, reportedly said that they have filed the appeal as directed by the top court on November 18 and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre and Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Asthana said that they would file their replies in two weeks.

Delhi Assembly had adopted a resolution against his appointment too

It is noteworthy that just a  day after Rakesh Asthana took charge as the new Delhi Police Commissioner, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi Assembly had adopted a resolution against the move. Tabled by AAP MLA Sanjeev Jha the resolution, was adopted after a brief discussion, and stated: “It is beyond any reasonable understanding as to why a controversial officer who was removed by this Central Government from the post of Special Director CBI in October 2018 and was not considered fit for the post of CBI director only very recently, is being imposed on Delhi Police. Given the past track record of this officer, there is reasonable apprehension that the Central Government will use him for foisting false cases on political rivals to create a reign of terror in the national capital. Such a controversial individual should not be heading the police force in the country’s national capital.” 

According to a report in Bar and Bench, CPIL had initially approached the Supreme Court challenging Asthana’s appointment, and another petitioner named Sadre Alam had moved the High Court challenging the appointment. The Supreme Court had kept CPIL petition pending and given liberty to the NGO to intervene before the High Court, stated B&B, adding that the HC had then dismissed Alam’s plea after a detailed hearing in which CPIL was also heard as intervener.

Related:

Delhi: Assembly passes resolution against Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as CP

All eyes on Rakesh Asthana, the new Delhi Police Commissioner

Delhi Government now means Lieutenant Governor

CBI vs CBI: No relief for Rakesh Asthana as Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR in bribery case

The post Supreme Court issues notice in plea challenging Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as Delhi CP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Just a  day after Rakesh Asthana took charge as the new Delhi Police Commissioner, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led Delhi Assembly adopted a resolution against the move. Tabled by AAP MLA Sanjeev Jha the resolution, was adopted after a brief discussion, and stated: 

“It is beyond any reasonable understanding as to why a controversial officer who was removed by this Central Government from the post of Special Director CBI in October 2018 and was not considered fit for the post of CBI director only very recently, is being imposed on Delhi Police. Given the past track record of this officer, there is reasonable apprehension that the Central Government will use him for foisting false cases on political rivals to create a reign of terror in the national capital. Such a controversial individual should not be heading the police force in the country’s national capital.” 

According to news reports, the AAP MLAs, siad in the Assembly that they have “reasonable apprehensions” that Asthana will be used to “create a reign of terror” against the party. The resolution asks the Delhi government to convey to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs “to withdraw the July 27 order appointing Asthana” and start afresh the process to appoint his replacement. According to MLA Sanjeev Jha, Asthana’s appointment as Delhi Police commissioner should qualify as a “contempt of court” as it was against a Supreme Court order. The Indian Express reported that the SC had said that the “recommendation for appointment to the post of DGP by the Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service.” 

दिल्ली पुलिस कमिश्नर के रूप में राकेश अस्थाना की नियुक्ति असंवैधानिक है।

प्रधानमंत्री मोदी जी के आंखों के तारे को उनकी रिटायरमेंट से 4 दिन पूर्व 1 साल का सेवा विस्तार देकर नियुक्त कर दिया।
1/2 pic.twitter.com/v6WwzFSgLb

— Sanjeev Jha (@Sanjeev_aap) July 29, 2021

Rakesh Asthana took charge as the new Delhi Police Commissioner  On Wednesday, July 27. The 1984-batch IPS officer, was due to retire on July 31, however, his service tenure was extended for a year, or till further orders. Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), also approved the “inter-cadre deputation from Gujarat to AGMUT cadre”.  

Former Secretary to Government of India, E A S Sarma, has also written a detailed letter to Cabinet Secretary Rajiv Gauba on raising concerns on the lack of transparency and major issues arising from such an appointment. According to Sarma he had in a previous letter to the PM highlighted that “appointments to the offices of the Director of CBI, the head of the Enforcement Directorate, the Chairman of CBDT, the head of the Intelligence Bureau and the heads of the other investigating agencies were not based on objective, transparent procedures”. He had specifically mentioned the appointment of Rakesh Asthana who was facing “allegations made in the past”. 

Sarma highlighted that now Asthana has been given an “initial tenure of only one year, with the possibility of its being extended beyond one year without any time limit”. And that as the new Commissioner of Police, he “knows well that he is on an indefinite tenure subject to Centre’s pleasure, implying that he enjoys no independence as a statutory authority, as envisaged in the apex court’s judgement in the Prakash Singh case.”  

Sarma asked, “Does not the procedure adopted in selecting Shri Asthana violate the transparency and objectivity norms set by the apex court?”He added that in his view, “the procedure of selection of an officer to head the Delhi police should be such that it inspires public confidence and credibility, especially at a time when serious concerns are being expressed at the way the Delhi police has handled investigations into the Delhi riots that rattled the capital city in February, 2020.” 

His complete letter may be read here:

Related:

All eyes on Rakesh Asthana, the new Delhi Police Commissioner
Delhi Government now means Lieutenant Governor
CBI vs CBI: No relief for Rakesh Asthana as Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR in bribery case
Alok Verma Resigns saying “Natural Justice was Scuttled”
Actor Rhea Chakraborty arrested by NCB, but the TV media trail continues to bay for 

The post Delhi: Assembly passes resolution against Rakesh Asthana’s appointment as CP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi Police led by its Commissioner, comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Last week, Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal also empowered the Delhi police commissioner under National Security Act (NSA). This empowers the commissioner to order preventive detention of any individual if he feels that the person poses a threat to national security, and law and order.

This order will be in place till October 18, 2021. The order is now active as Independence Day draws close, the Parliament’s Monsoon session at a time farmers protesting against the Centre’s three agriculture laws have been holding ‘Kisan Sansad’ at central Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. 

On Wednesday, July 27, Rakesh Asthana took charge as the new Delhi Police Commissioner. His appointment was announced the evening before, and according to multiple news reports, he has been handpicked for the job. The 1984-batch IPS officer, was due to retire on July 31, however, his service tenure has now been extended for one more year, or till further orders. Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), had also approved the “inter-cadre deputation from Gujarat to AGMUT cadre”. 

Asthana was serving as the Director General of the Border Security Force (BSF), when he was appointed to lead the Delhi Police. He had also served as the Special Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. 

What is different about this appointment?

It is rare that an IPS officer from a state cadre, in this case Gujarat, is specially moved to the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory (AGMUT) cadre to facilitate his appointment as police chief of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Delhi is a Union Territory that also has an elected government led by a Chief Minister. However, on April 27 2021, Government of India had notified the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021. This Act gives more authority to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi over the elected government in the city. Simply put, Delhi’s LG Anil Baijal is THE government in the Union territory now.

According to the legislation, the opinion of the LG “shall be obtained” before taking any executive action on decisions of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi government. And with the Delhi LG granting powers to the commissioner of Delhi Police under the NSA, it is clear that the ‘power centres’ as it were has been re-established. Asthana’s appointment as CP has been done after a “relaxation of Rule 16 (1) of the All India Services (death-cum-retirement benefits) Rules, 1958 as a special case in public interest.”  According to news reports, B G Krishnan, Deputy Secretary,  Home Ministry issued a notification that stated, “The approval of the appointment committee of the Cabinet has been conveyed, dated July 27, 2021, for the Inter Cadre deputation of Rakesh Asthana, from Gujarat cadre to AGMUT Cadre and extending his service initially for a period of one year beyond the date of his superannuation on July 31,2021, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, in relaxation of Rule 16 (1) of the All India Services (death-cum-retirement benefits) rules, 1958 as a special case in public interest. In pursuance of the said approval, Asthana is hereby appointed as Commissioner of Police, Delhi, with effect from the date of taking over charge up to July 31, 2022 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.” 

What is happening in Delhi in the next few months?

The Monsoon Session of the Parliament is underway, a few kilometers away around 200 farmers associated with the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) are conducting a ‘Kisan Sansad’, or farmers Parliament. This is for the first time since they began their protest on Delhi’s borders in November 2020 that they have been allowed to gather in the city centre, so close to Parliament. The Kisan Sansad has been peaceful, and is being conducted under a heavy security cover, at Jantar Mantar.

However, recently Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) spokesperson Rakesh Tikait has said that the farmers may hold a tractor rally on Independence Day. According to news reports, Tikait said this in Jind, Haryana where the farmers have reportedly expressed their inets of holding such an event. 

The announcement may have upped the ante in Delhi too, where security is at its most strict around national events such as Independence Day. On January 26, 2021, unprecedented chaos was witnessed in the city, and confrontation between Delhi Police, and volatile groups ensued. In May Delhi Police crime branch named 16 suspects in the charge sheet filed on the Republic Day violence allegedly by a section of anti farm law protesters. According to media reports the Delhi Police has charged that the violence was  “a deep-rooted, well-orchestrated conspiracy.” 

As the new commissioner all eyes will now be on Rakesh Asthana’s handling of the farmers’ protest in the months to come. Law and order in Delhi may also be seen as also crucial and sensitive as the states around the national capital are preparing for Assembly elections in 2022.  

Why is his name familiar in Delhi? 

In October 2018, there was a ‘CBI Vs CBI’ confrontation between Asthana the special director and Alok Verma the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Allegations ranging from ‘misusing CBI resources for serving the agenda of powerful political masters to corruption and bribery, to orchestrating a cover-up of investigations’ flew thick. 

In 2019, the Delhi High Court had refused to quash the FIR in the bribery case against Rakesh Asthana, CBI Special Director and Devender Kumar, CBI DySP. The court had directed the CBI to complete the investigation within 10 weeks and file a charge sheet. Verma had registered an FIR against Asthana on October 15, 2018, reported Indian Express. The allegation according to the news report was that “a suspect in the Moin Qureshi case had been forced to pay Rs 2.95 crore to Asthana through two middlemen to water down the case against him”. Asthana was eventually cleared of all charges and the CBI had submitted in the High Court that there was no evidence to support the charges against him. 

Most recently, his name has featured in the list of names revealed by the Pegasus Project investigations. The Wire had reported that, hours after their termination from CBO, “both Asthana’s and Verma’s phone numbers had come under the scanner of the client of the Israeli NSO Group, the creator of the Pegasus spyware”. According to the report another phone number, belonging to senior CBI official A.K. Sharma, was also on the list.

Other career milestones? 

Asthana was  appointed to the post of Director General Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in 2019. He led the NCB when it probed the highly publicised drugs trafficking case that was investigating following  actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death. According to a report in Hindustan Times Asthana had himself  visited Mumbai to “review investigations”. The NCB had made many arrests in the case including actor Rhea Chakraborty.

Asthana was also the CBI officer who investigated the fodder scam, in which former Bihar chief minister Lalu Yadav was convicted. He was also the head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Godhra train arson.  Although a junior IG, Asthana was appointed to the post of IGP of the important Vadodara Range in April 2003. 

After Asthana’s elevation as interim director Central Bureau of Investigation by the PMO (prime minister’s office), on December 6, 2016, a Public-Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court on seeking quashing of the same.  

Related:

Delhi Government now means Lieutenant Governor
CBI vs CBI: No relief for Rakesh Asthana as Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR in bribery case
Alok Verma Resigns saying “Natural Justice was Scuttled”
Actor Rhea Chakraborty arrested by NCB, but the TV media trail continues to bay for 

The post All eyes on Rakesh Asthana, the new Delhi Police Commissioner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR in the bribery case against Rakesh Asthana, CBI Special Director and Devender Kumar, CBI DySP. The court has directed the CBI to complete the investigation within 10 weeks and file a charge sheet.
 
The court said the allegation of mala fide raised against the then CBI Director Alok Verma is not made out.
 
The high court also rejected the contention that the CBI should have taken the government’s sanction before registering the case, underlining that when a cognisable offence is alleged to have been committed, there must be a probe.
 
In his petition, Asthana had challenged the FIR saying it was motivated at the behest of his boss, CBI director Alok Verma, who was sacked by the government on Thursday.
 
Asthana and Kumar were accused of taking Rs. 3 crores in bribe from businessman Sathish Babu Sana to sabotage a money laundering investigation against meat exporter Moin Qureshi.
 
Justice Najmi Waziri of the High Court had reserved its verdict on December 20 on various petitions after hearing submissions of the counsels for CBI, the Centre, Asthana, Kumar, former CBI director Alok Kumar Verma and Joint Director A K Sharma.
 
The court was hearing petitions filed by the three challenging the First Information Report in which Asthana was charged with criminal conspiracy, corruption and criminal misconduct.
 
“Senior advocates Amrendra Sharan and Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Asthana and Kumar respectively, argued that the FIR was antedated and it reached the magistrate 52 hours after registration, whereas, as per law it should be placed before the magistrate within 24 hours. They contended that there was no allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification against Asthana and he cannot be made an accused of the alleged offence under the PC Act. They had also placed reliance on Section 17A in the Prevention of Corruption Act, newly inserted as per 2018 amendment, which mandated prior sanction even for investigation of offences. It was their argument that registration of FIR required prior sanction,” reported Live Law.
 
Verma has said in the affidavit that there were sufficient incriminating documents and evidence against all accused — Asthana, Kumar and middleman Manoj Prasad — with the CBI and the FIR was lodged after the PE disclosed cognisable offences.
 
It has claimed that Asthana’s plea is misconceived, premature and not maintainable as the investigation in the matter is at a nascent stage.
 
The development comes a day after CBI chief Alok Verma was removed by a high-level committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, just two days after his conditional reinstatement by the Supreme Court.
 

The post CBI vs CBI: No relief for Rakesh Asthana as Delhi HC refuses to quash FIR in bribery case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: In a crucial turn of events, another CBI officer, Joint Director MK Sinha, filed a petition in the Supreme court alleging that National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval interfered with the CBI’s investigations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and botched up the search to be carried out at his residence.
 
He filed a complaint against his sudden transfer to Nagpur. He was among the large numbers of officers who were transferred overnight on October 23. The midnight coup had also resulted in CBI director Alok Verma being dismissed from his post.
 
“He alleged that the two middlemen involved in the case were close to Doval. He has also alleged that the complainant in the case, businessman Sana Sathish Babu, had told him that Union Minister of State for Coal and Mines Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhari had been paid bribes to the tune of several crores of rupees for alleged help in matters related to the CBI. An MP from Gujarat, Chaudhari is known to be close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” reported Indian Express.
 
“In his over 30-page petition, Manish, an IPS officer from the batch of 2000, alleged that businessman Manoj Prasad, who was arrested by the CBI on 16 October in a bribery case involving another business Satish Babu Sana, boasted of his father’s (Dineshwar Prasad) close ties with National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval. “This was one of the first things Manoj claimed on being brought to CBI HQ and expressed complete surprise and anger as to how CBI could pick him up, despite his close links with the NSA Shri Doval,” the petition said in a report by Firstpost.
 
The writ petition can be read here:

 
Another senior CBI officer Ashwini Kumar Gupta on Saturday moved the Supreme Court alleging that his repatriation to the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was done with malafide intention.
 
Selected extracts from Sinha’s plea as published by The Print are reproduced below:
 
On interference in probe
“The manner, timing and the speed with which overnight, in a single stroke, the investigation team was disbanded without assigning any formal reason, and all the main team members of the team were thrown out to remote places in a punitive and stigmatic manner, itself portends very ominous signals, not only for the professional career of investigating officers but also the investigation of the entire case. It further reflects that how levers of CBI is controlled by powerful persons just to fit it into their personal objectives of exonerating or implicating certain individuals, irrespective of the merit of the case.”
 
“It is beyond the capability of any agency to do a fair and just work in this case under the present circumstances unless benevolent protection of Hon’ble Court is extended. Investigation was not allowed to take its course and pace. The efforts of the agency to get evidences through secret operations were negated. The persons involved were cautioned. Crucial evidence could not be secured. Investigation, going forward, is certainly a daunting and an uphill task. In fact, the Investigation of this case appears derailed and doomed unless this Hon’ble Court pro-actively intervenes.”
 
On Ajit Doval
“On the morning of 16.10.2018, the accused Shri Manoj Prasad (alleged middleman) was intercepted at Delhi Airport on his arrival from Dubai and brought to CBI HQ. During the first few hours of his arrival at CBI HO, Manoj was garrulous and arrogant, both at the same time, and in equal measure. He was interviewed by the applicant and others. He tried his best to ward off the investigation by dropping names of ‘high and mighty’ and mentioning his ‘top contacts’ to create fear in our mind.
 
“The relevant conversation of his initial outburst is being placed on record here. As per Manoj Prasad, Shri Dineshwar Prasad, father of Manoj and Somesh, retired as Joint Secretary, R&AW and has close acquaintance with the present National Security Advisor Shri Ajit K. Doval (“NSA”). This was one of the first things Manoj claimed on being brought to CBI HQ and expressed complete surprise and anger as to how CBI could pick him up, despite his close links with the NSA Shri Doval.
 
“He started bragging and claimed that his brother Shri Somesh is very close to an officer at Dubai (name withheld) and to Samant Goel, presently Special Secretary, R&AW and he can get us ‘finished off’ / “kicked out’.
 
“Manoj taunted us that you people have no standing whatsoever and therefore should “stay in limits” and let him free. He claimed that recently his brother Somesh and Samant Goel, helped the NSA Shri Ajit Doval on an important personal matter. He further claimed that India opted out of a contest from INTERPOL. Regarding genuineness of this claim of Manoj, no attempt was made to verify the claim regarding the NSA Shri Doval.”
 
“Ultimately, the proposal seeking permission to search was put on record by the IO on 22.10.2018. However, the same was not allowed and a query was raised by the Director as to why the searches are to be done.
 
“Upon being queried, the Director/Petitoner herein replied that he was not getting clearance from the NSA/Shri Doval. It was then resolved, as a face saving measure, to take recourse to the Quashing Petition, filed by Shri Rakesh Asthana, pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which was coming up for hearing on 23.10.2018. That is why, during the hearing dated 23.10.2018, the CBI had insisted that the electronic devices such as the cell phone sets be preserved.
 
“While the search was on, a phone call was received from Director CBI instructing to stop the search. At that time, the Applicant herein was sitting in the BS& FC office and asked the Director, to which the Director replied that this instruction has come from NSA Shri Doval.”
 
On Haribhai Chaudhary
“On the forenoon of 20.10.2018, the Applicant herein interviewed the Complainant- Shri Sana at CBI HO. He stood by the contents of his complaint with respect to CBI officials. That apart, he also claimed that:-
 
“Sometime in first fortnight of June 2018, a few crores of rupees was paid to Shri Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, presently Minister of State for Coal and Mines in Government of India.
 
“As per Shri Sana, Shri Haribhai had intervened with the Senior officers of CBI through the office of the Minister of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension [“MOS (P)”], to whom, apparently, the Director – CBI reports to.
 
“The money was paid through one Vipul of Ahmedabad. These facts were disclosed by Sana to me on 20.10.2018 in the forenoon. I immediately reported the matter to the Director and the AD (AK Sharma).
 
“Discreet enquiries were conducted and a source informed that there are calls intercepted by another central agency in first fortnight of June, wherein there is talk between Shri K Laxma Reddy, MLA, Medchal, Hyderabad, and Shri Sana on money being sent to the tune of one or two crores.”
 
On K.V. Chaudhary
“Shri Sathish Babu Sana also disclosed that he met the CVC Shri KV Chowdhary alongwith one Gorantla Ramesh (close relative of CVC Shri KV Chowdhary and owner of Delhi Public School Hyderabad, as per Sana) somewhere in Delhi (exact date and location was not informed) and that they discussed Moin Qureshi’s case. As per Sana, in the year 2011, Shri Gorantla Ramesh sold some land and gave around Rs 4 crores out of the said sale consideration to Shri Sana, in the same month, in which Shri Sana had given Rs 50 Lakhs to Moin Qureshi. Therefore, Shri Gorantla Ramesh was examined by CBI in the Moin Qureshi’s case.
 
“As per Shri Sana, subsequently, the CVC Shri KV Chowdhary called Shri Rakesh Asthana to his residence and made inquiries. Shri Rakesh Asthana informed to the CVC that there is not much in evidence against them. There is no illegality in this, but the same is put on record here for the sake of completeness. No verification was undertaken and the same is based on disclosure made by Sana.”
 
On Suresh Chandra
“Additionally, the Applicant became aware that while the proceedings were going on in the CVC against the Petitioner herein – Shri Alok Verma, the Union Law Secretary Shri Suresh Chandra waded in to the issue. On 8.11.2018, the office of Shri Sana was repeatedly approached by one Ms. Rekha Rani, IAS officer of Andhra Pradesh Cadre, claiming that the Union Law Secretary, who is in London, wants to speak to Shri Sana. The London number of the Union Law Secretary was communicated.
 
“Shri Sana spoke to him on Whatsapp on the evening of 08.11.2018. The Union Law Secretary Shri Suresh Chandra said that he was in London for some work related to Nirav Modi case, that he was trying to contact him for last 4/5 days in order to convey message of Cabinet Secretary Shri PK Sinha that the Union Government will offer full protection to him, that there will be a drastic change on Tuesday (13th) and that he (Sana) should meet him (Suresh Chandra) on Wednesday(14th), that even IB is not able to track his (Sana) movement, that he also tried to communicate the message through one Chamundeshwarnath with whom he met in his London hotel. The call was ended by Sana promising to call him again later in the night.
 
“Once again Suresh Chandra enquired with Ms Rekha Rani on 13th November and asked her on presence of Sana. It appears that Shri Suresh Chandra was more forthcoming this time and requested Ms Rekha Rani to ensure that Sana be helpful, that all his future problems will be taken care of and that he should be brought to Delhi on Thursday or Friday i.e., 15/16.11.2018. This last (previous) sentence is as disclosed to Sana by Ms Rekha Rani.”
 

The post NSA Ajit Doval interfered in Asthana investigation: CBI Jt. Director appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) submitted its inquiry report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover on Monday. The inquiry was ordered on a bribery case against Central Bureau of Investigation Director (CBI) Alok Kumar Verma.
 
The CVC inquiry was based on a letter dated August 24, 2018, received by the CVC from the Cabinet Secretary. The CVC had said the allegations against Verma were “serious in nature having prima facie vigilance angle.
 
The report was submitted before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in the courtroom. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the CVC, stated that the inquiry into allegations against Mr. Verma was over on November 10.
 
A 24-hour delay by the CVC to file the report forced SC to adjourn the hearing to November 16. It was originally scheduled for Monday. Chief Justice Gogoi made the court’s displeasure clear when the filing was delayed.
 
CVC was ordered to complete its preliminary inquiry report within two weeks against Verma on Oct 26. Verma was sent on leave by the centre and divested of his duties after his feud with CBI special director Rakesh Asthana became public.
 
Verma appeared before the three-member CVC headed by K V Chowdary and is said to have given point-wise refusal to all the allegations levelled against him by his deputy.
 
The CBI, on the other hand, also handed over to the top court the agency’s report on the decisions taken by its interim director Nageshwar Rao from October 23, ever since he took charge as CBI head.
 
Asthana accused Verma of accepting bribes from meat exporter Moin Qureshi after Verma accused him of being corrupt.
 
“The feud between Verma and Asthana escalated last month, leading to the registration of an FIR against Asthana and others, including Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who is in CBI custody in an alleged bribery case. After the tussle between the two senior officers became public, the Centre, in a sudden overnight strike on October 23, divested both Verma and Asthana of their duties and sent them on leave. The very next day, Verma challenged his removal in the top court that issued notices to both the central government and the CVC. The court directed the CVC to complete the inquiry against the CBI director within two weeks. Meanwhile, the court had also barred IPS officer M Nageswara Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision,” a report said.
 

The post CBI VS CBI: Delay in submitting report pushes crucial hearing to Nov 16 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Interview with Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
Interviewed by Prabir Purkayastha Produced by Newsclick Team,

Following the recent rift within the CBI between the top two officers of the agency, Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, a new Interim Director was appointed by the Government. In this discussion, Senior Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Newsclick Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha talk about the various facets of the tussle and the implications of this internal war on the future of India’s premier investigative agency.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post Spy vs. Spy: Institutional Collapse of CBI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post CBI Arrests Its Own Official As Infighting Between Top 2 Turns Murkier 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.