Coal news and updates

 

The CBI on Tuesday opposed the Supreme Court's desire to appoint an amicus curiae to get an independent perspective on the CBI's "pace and fairness" in court-monitored investigations into alleged irregularities in allotment of coal blocks. 

 

A bench of Justices R M Lodha, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph was just a step away from appointing senior advocate T R Andhyarujina as amicus, but CBI's counsel Amarendra Saran said the moment the court appointed an amicus, the court-monitored investigations turned into court-supervised probe, which was impermissible in law. 

 

Stressing that the CBI had sole jurisdiction over the mode and manner of conducting investigations into any case, including the coal scam, Saran said given the sensitive nature of the case and the industrial lobbies involved, he was wary of leak of information in the probe status report, if it was shared with a third person. 

 

The amicus could not be looking into the probe status report all alone and must take assistance of his office and there lay the problem, he said. "I am wary of Trojan horse in such a sensitive case. The signs are already there. Eminent counsel who appeared for industrial houses facing probe in this case were the vociferous lot favouring appointment of amicus curiae. They want to see that the investigations go in a particular direction," Saran said. 

 

In normal circumstances, investigating agencies do not share probe details even with the court, except in cases where it monitored investigations as in the coal scam case, he said. 

 

The bench clarified that it never intended to supervise the investigations and that it was only monitoring the CBI's probe into alleged irregular allotment of coal blocks. But it was rather surprised over the vehemence with which the agency opposed appointment of an amicus curiae. 

 

Saran said he was not against any individual and certainly held Andhyarujina in high esteem. "I am against the concept of amicus curiae in a court-monitored investigation. Once the amicus is permitted to go through the probe status report, then the purity of investigation is lost. Once the Supreme Court does it, then can anyone stop the high courts from following suit? If the sanctity of the investigation is to be maintained, then apart from the judges who have taken oath of office, no one else should be permitted to see the investigation status report," the CBI counsel said. 

 

Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Sanjay Parikh and Aparna Bhat supported appointment of an amicus curiae but petitioner M L Sharma was one with Saran in opposing it. 

 

Attorney general G E Vahanvati said the bench, if it intended to appoint an amicus, could do so without inviting suggestions from advocates. However, he agreed with Saran that the amicus would be saddled with a huge responsibility of guarding against leaks from his office. 

 

The bench deferred debate on the issue as the CBI was dead against it and even the AG counseled caution. What it intends to do now is appoint an amicus curiae who will assist the judges in the chambers in understanding the "pace and fairness" of the CBI investigation. 

 

 

Source: ToI