SC seeks PNB probe report in sealed cover, Govt objects
The Indian Express, By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: March 17, 2018
The Supreme Court’s suggestion Friday to file the probe report of the PNB scam in a sealed cover to it invited strong protests from the Centre which opposed this saying it would amount to a “parallel enquiry.”
“What is the justification for any court, let alone this court, to ask to file the report…It will amount to a parallel inquiry”, Attorney General K K Venugopal told a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
The AG was responding to the CJI’s suggestion while hearing a PIL — which sought directions to register cases against top officials of Punjab National Bank, deportation of Nirav Modi and directions to bank regarding grant of loans — that the Centre file the report in a sealed cover.
At the outset, the AG apprised the court that the probe was on and 19 persons had been arrested so far, of whom eight were public servants and the rest private persons.
Venugopal said: “There can’t be a parallel inquiry in courts.” And requested that the investigating agency be allowed to do its job. It was then that the CJI suggested that the Centre file the report in a sealed cover and assured him “we will not give it to him (petitioner)”.
But the AG protested saying “this had been happening in many cases now”. Petitioner’s counsel J P Dhanda then told the court that the AG did not appear to have read his petition and was apparently replying to some other similar petition. This evoked strong reactions from the bench. “What are you saying that the AG has not read the brief?”, asked Justice Khanwilkar with Justice Chandrachud backing him.
Dhanda added that his petition had 10-11 prayers and the AG didn’t seem to be referring to those. Justice Khanwilkar said: “That doesn’t justify this stand. How can you presume the AG has not read the brief?”.
An annoyed CJI added, “The AG’s post is a Constitutional post. Why should be be asked if he has read the brief? Language in court has to be decorous and absolutely appropriate”.
The bench and adjourned it to April. Hearing on the petition last month too had witnessed strong comments from the bench which termed it a “publicity interest litigation” and a “misuse of PIL.”
Justice Chandrachud had said then “we must not pre-empt the government and stop it from investigating” and that the forum of courts was always there if the investigation was not satisfactory.
Comments
Post a Comment