Submissions and orders in PILs
IMPORTANT SUBMISSION AND ORDERS:
PILS ON COAL ALLOCATIONS & 2G LICENCES
Presented below is a compilation of recent submissions and orders in the PILs filed by Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation on Coal Allocations and 2G Licences, respectively. These documents find mention in the preceding lead article.
-Editor
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 463 OF 2012
I.A. No. 13 OF 2014
Common Cause & Ors ....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors ....Respondents
The humble application of the petitioner above named most respectfully showeth:
1. The above petition relates to the massive scam that occurred in the allocation of precious natural resource, i.e. coal, causing loss to the public exchequer running into lakhs of crores of rupees. Coal blocks with hundreds of millions of coal reserves were gratuitously handed over to a few select private profiteers. Not only was a scarce national resource gifted away to private companies virtually free, the process followed in selecting the allottees was also completely opaque and arbitrary, and has been declared to be illegal vide this Hon'ble Court's judgment dated 25.08.2014.
2. There is no doubt that serious criminal offences including corruption, cheating, breach of trust, fraud and criminal conspiracy were committed in the allocation of coal blocks. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had itself directed the CBI to investigate the allocation pursuant to which CBI has registered 20 FIRs for offences of corruption, cheating, and criminal conspiracy against several companies and "unknown public officials", although the agency has so far filed only two chargesheets for the offence of cheating. It is evident that the persons who are the subject of the investigation are extremely influential and powerful. The involvement of various former ministers, bureaucrats, and big corporates is required to be investigated as they were either involved in the allocation of coal blocks or were the beneficiaries of the said allocations.
3. Considering the magnitude of the case and the involvement of influential persons, this Hon'ble Court is monitoring the investigations being carried out by the CBI and the ED, and has passed several directions in the matter, which make it clear that no interference from any quarter in the said investigations would be tolerated.
4. The petitioners are filing the instant application in the context of the extraordinary developments that have recently come to light. This application seeks a direction to Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), not to interfere in the investigations and prosecutions related to the coal blocks allocation case, and to recuse himself from the case. There are incontrovertible facts in the public domain which lead to the inescapable conclusion that it is necessary to remove Mr. Sinha from the case for ensuring fair and impartial investigations. Before spelling out the new revelations, the petitioners would like to enumerate the instances of undue interference on the part of Mr. Sinha that are already on the record of this Hon'ble Court.
Changing the status report
5. This Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated 24.01.2013, had directed the CBI to file the status report in the form of an affidavit. However, the CBI took leave of this Hon'ble Court to file the status report in a sealed-cover and filed the same on 08.03.2013. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 12.03.2013, the CBI's senior counsel informed the court that the status report had not been shared with anyone. However, this Hon'ble Court asked the Director CBI to file an affidavit that the status report had not been shared with the political executive.
6. Having been forced to file an affidavit, the Director CBI admitted before this Hon'ble Court vide a short affidavit that he had shared the status report with the political executive. Presented with a cryptic and unsatisfactory affidavit that concealed more than it revealed, this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 30.04.2013 framed specific queries for the CBI Director to answer. In the next affidavit, the Director, CBI, admitted that not only did he share the status report with the political executive, but he also changed it at their instance. Narrating the sequence of events, he informed this Hon'ble Court that he changed the status report at the instance of the Union Law Minister and two joint-secretary level officers of the PMO and the Ministry of Coal, and that several findings of the CBI were dropped from the status report. This Hon'ble Court later admonished the CBI for allowing a status report, which was meant to be filed in a sealed cover before this Hon'ble Court, to be altered at the request of the political executive.
Forcing CBI to close cases
7. As the investigations progressed further, it came to light that Mr. Sinha, along with a few other senior officers of the level of the Joint Directors, was repeatedly overruling the investigation officers and forcing them to not to register FIRs/RCs in cases where PEs had been registered. He even forced them to file closure reports in cases where FIRs had already been registered.
8. Faced with such a situation, this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the CBI to submit their reports to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in cases where Inquiry Officers had recommended registration of a Regular Case, but had been overruled by the CBI Headquarters. Later, the CVC, agreeing with the investigation officers, categorically recommended registration of Regular Cases in as many as 14 such cases in the first instance. This Hon'ble Court directed the CBI to abide by the view taken by the CVC. This clearly shows that the decision taken at the level of the CBI Director to close these cases was wrong and amounted to subverting the process of investigation.
New revelations
9. A trusted whistle-blower has brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioners some significant information contained in the entry register of the years 2013 and 2014, which was maintained at the official residence of the CBI Director, Mr. Ranjit Sinha, at 2, Janpath, New Delhi. This record, which has also been accessed by several media organizations, shows that the CBI Director had met at his residence several persons, who are the accused in prominent cases like Coal blocks allocation scam, 2G scam, 4G scam, etc., without any of the investigation officers being present. Many of the meetings were held late at night.
10. It is of particular significance that Mr. Ranjit Sinha had several meetings with Mr. Vijay Darda, and his son Mr. Devendra Darda, who are being investigated in the case of illegal allocation of coal blocks. Mr. Sinha also met with Mr. Subodh Kant Sahay. former Union Minister, whose brother's company is one of the beneficiaries of the allocation of coal blocks and is being investigated by the CBI.
11. The aforesaid entry register of Mr. Sinha's residence runs into hundreds of pages and contains thousands of handwritten entries. The entries contain specific details, including the name of the visitor, date and time of visit, and the vehicle number, which can easily be verified in any investigation. It is to be noted that Mr. Sinha did not meet all these accused persons at his office, or in the presence of the investigation officers. He only met them at his residence without the investigation team being present. The petitioners seek liberty to produce copies of the entry register at the time of hearing.
12. When these facts came to light, Mr. Sinha got the CBI to issue a statement that these revelations were a lie and that no such entry register existed. Later, he issued a statement that this was tantamount to an invasion of his privacy. And then he issued a statement that some entries in the register were genuine, while the others were forged. Finally, he again changed his statement and claimed that there was nothing wrong in meeting the accused. These changing versions show that Mr. Sinha has much to hide.
Conclusion
13. From the above, it is clear that even after Mr. Ranjit Sinha and the CBI were admonished by this Hon'ble Court for showing the CBI status report to the political executive before it was filed in this Hon'ble Court and for modifying the status report at the instance of the political executive, he did not mend his ways. He continued to interfere in the CBI investigations in the coal allocation cases by overruling the team of investigation officers and forcing them not to register FIRs and file closure reports in cases where FIRs had already been registered. Eventually, this Hon'ble Court had to step in and order the registration of as many as 14 fresh FIRs in coal allocation cases. Even now, no effort is being spared in order to delay the registration of FIRs and filing of chargesheets.
14. Mr. Sinha's frequent meetings at his residence with the accused in prominent cases like coal block allocation scam and 2G scam are of a piece with the attempts to damage the CBI's case in 2G cases, for which he was strongly criticized by then SPP, Shri U. U. Lalit.
16. Hence, in the light of these facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that in public interest and in the interest of fair investigations in the case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct that Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, shall not interfere in coal block allocation case investigations and the prosecutions being carried out by the CBI, and shall withdraw from these cases.
PRAYERS
In these facts and circumstances, the petitioners respectfully pray for the following ad interim directions:
(i) Direct Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, not to interfere in the coal block allocation case investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI and to recuse himself from these cases.
(ii) Direct an SIT appointed by this Hon'ble Court to investigate the abuse of authority committed by the CBI Director in order to scuttle inquires, investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI in coal block allocation cases & other important cases.
(iii) Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
PETITIONERS THROUGH PRASHANT BHUSHAN
FILED ON 05.09.2014 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
I.A.NOS. 36
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10660/2010
CENTER FOR PIL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 15/09/2014 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Ranjit Sinha, Director, Central Burueau of investigation (for short, "the Director, CBI") and Shri Prashant Bhushan learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
We have also heard Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior Counsel as an Advisor to the Court.
We do not intend to say much on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels.In our opinion,it is suffice to observe that the affidavit (in I.A. No. 73)filed by Shri Prashant Bhushun, is not in consonance with Order IX Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.The said provision is quoted herein below.
"In this Order, `affidavit' includes a petition or other documents required to be sworn or verified; and `sworn' includes affirmed. In the verification of petition, pleadings or other proceedings, statements based on personal knowledge shall be distinguished from statements based on information and belief. In the case of statements based on information, the deponent shall disclose the source of his information, including official records."
In our opinion, before we pass any order on the affidavit at the first instance, we request Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned cousnel to disclose the source of his information to us which has formed the basis of the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The information that will be disclosed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel shall be kept in a sealed cover and to be opend by this Court only.
Further, we direct the Registry to keep all the documents and affidavits filed by the Director, C.B.I. in a sealed cover, to be kept safely in the custody of the Secretary General of this Court.
List on 22.09.2014.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 463 OF 2012
I.A. No. 19 OF 2014
The humble application of the petitioners above named most respectfully showeth:
1. The above petition relates to the coal block allocation scam, where this Hon'ble Court is monitoring the investigations being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
2. The petitioners have filed an application (IA 13/2014) seeking a direction from this Hon'ble Court to Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, not to participate in the investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI in relation to the coal blocks allocation case. The petitioners have also sought an SIT investigation into the abuse of authority by the CBI Director in undermining the ongoing inquiries, investigations and prosecutions relating to the coal blocks scam & other important cases.
3. The said application (IA 13/2014) was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 09.09.2014 when this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondents returnable on 19.09.2014.
4. The petitioners have, inter alia, stated in the aforesaid application that a trustworthy and reliable source has brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioners some significant information contained in the entry register of the years 2013 and 2014, which was maintained at the official residence of the CBI Director, Mr. Ranjit Sinha, at 2, Janpath, New Delhi.
5. This record, which has also been accessed by several media organizations, shows that the CBI Director had frequently met at his residence several persons, who are the accused in prominent cases like coal blocks allocation scam, 2G scam, etc. and hawala dealers like Mr. Moin Qureshi, without any investigation officers being present.
6. By one count, Mr. Moin Qureshi met the CBI Director at his residence about 90 times in the last 15 months. All these meetings are reflected in the entry register of the CBI Director's residence, a copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioners.
7. Subsequent to the last date of hearing, i.e. 09.09.2014, certain significant information, which, the petitioners believe, would be of considerable assistance to this Hon'ble Court in deciding the aforesaid application, has come into their possession.
8. The petitioners are given to understand that Qureshi has been under extensive investigation by the Director, IT (Inv) and that his premises have been raided by the IT authorities. Several important documents and his computers have been seized by the DGIT.
9. In this context, the Director of Income Tax (Investigations-II) addressed a letter to the DG of IT (Inv.) on 11.06.2014, seeking extension of time for submission of an appraisal report in respect of the electronic information gathered during the raid. The letter states:
"This case is being monitored by the undersigned on a regular basis. The case involves processing and analysis of voluminous data in seized computer hard discs. Considering the sensitivity of the case the services of Centre for Emergency Response and Training under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology were availed. Subsequently data mining has been carried out. Presently the assessee Mr. Moin Qureshi is being examined on the data mined from the hard discs. Since these are time consuming process, extension of time for submission of appraisal report by one month as requested by the ADIT (Inv) may kindly be granted."
10. Credible information has been received by the counsel for the petitioners that the Income Tax Department has now prepared the aforesaid appraisal report which has been referred to in the letter of 11.06.2014. The said appraisal report goes into the details of the illegal operations of Mr. Qureshi and his dealings with various individuals. According to the information received from trustworthy and reliable sources by the petitioners' counsel, the said appraisal report also covers in some detail the dealings of Mr. Qureshi with Mr. Ranjit Sinha.
11. Therefore, the petitioners request this Hon'ble Court to call upon the Central Government to produce the appraisal report prepared by the DGIT in connection with their investigations of Mr. Moin Qureshi.
PRAYERS
In these facts and circumstances, the petitioners respectfully pray for the following ad interim directions:
(iv) Direct the Central Government to produce the appraisal report prepared by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigations) on their investigations of Mr. Moin Qureshi.
(v) Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
PETITIONERS THROUGH: PRASHANT BHUSHAN
FILED ON: 18.09.2014 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] NO. 463 OF 2012
Mr. Ranjit Sinha's application under Section 195 read with Sec. 340 Cr. P. C.
The humble application of the applicant above mentioned most respectfully showeth
1. That I.A. No. 19 of 2014 was filed on 18.09.2014 before this Hon'ble Court in the present matter by Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal who has sworn in the affidavit on behalf of the Applicant wherein it was stated that credible information was received by the counsel for the Petitioner (i.e., Shri Prashant Bhushan) that the Income Tax Department had prepared the Appraisal Report which goes into the details of illegal operations of Mr. Moin Qureshi and his dealings with various individuals.
2. The deponent in the said Application further stated that according to the information received from trustworthy and reliable sources by the Petitioner's counsel (i.e. Shri Prashant Bhushan) the Appraisal Report of the Income Tax Department also covered in some details the dealing of Mr. Moin Qureshi with Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI. The Deponent in the said application prayed that a direction be given to the Central Government to produce before this Hon'ble Court the Appraisal Report prepared by the Director General of Income Tax [Investigations] on their investigations of Mr. Moin Qureshi. Relevant extracts of the said application relating to the said averment are as reproduced below:
"10. Credible information has been received by the counsel for the petitioners that the Income Tax Department has not prepared the aforesaid appraisal report which has been referred to in the letter of 11.06.2014 (annexed above). The said appraisal report goes into the details of the illegal operations of Mr. Qureshi and his dealings with various individuals. According to the information received from trustworthy and reliable sources by the petitioners' counsel, the said appraisal report also covers in some detail the dealings of Mr. Qureshi with Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI.
11. Therefore, the petitioners request this Hon'ble Court to call upon the Central Government to produce the appraisal report prepared by the DGIT in connection with their investigations of Mr. Moin Qureshi."
3. The aforesaid content of the said application is clearly mischievous and is based upon untrue facts in which mis-statements have been deliberately made so as to obtain favourable orders from this Hon'ble Court.
4. That the facts which have been deliberately wrongly made in the application, are dealt with as under:-
(i) That on 17.10.2014 the matter was heard by this Hon'ble Court wherein the Ld. Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Union of India tendered to this Hon'ble Court the aforesaid Appraisal Report prepared by the Income Tax Department in respect of Mr. Moin Qureshi in a sealed cover. Ld. AG submitted before the Hon'ble Court that there was nothing against the present Director, CBI in the aforesaid Income Tax Department Appraisal Report. The said submission of Ld. Attorney General was also widely reported in the print and electronic media.
ii) That the deponent also stated in the said application filed on 18.09.2014 that credible information was received by the counsel for the Petitioner that the Income Tax Department had prepared the Appraisal Report which goes into the details of illegal operations of Mr. Qureshi and his dealings with various individuals. It is submitted that when the matter was listed before this Hon'ble Court on 19.09.2014, Ld. AG appearing on behalf of Union of India submitted that the Report was not ready and therefore sought four (4) weeks time to place the Report before the Hon'ble Court.
5. All these false statements as stated above have been deliberately and intentionally made by the deponent and the counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing on 19.09.2014 and 17.10.2014 to cause a circumstance to exist with the objective of misleading this Hon'ble Court and hence the deponent Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal as well as counsel for petitioner Mr. Prashant Bhushan are punishable under various sections of the IPC including Section 193.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
A. Direct the concerned Police Station to register an FIR against Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the Petitioner Association (i.e., Common Cause) and Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal for making deliberate and intentional false statements on oath and before this Hon'ble Court in these proceedings.
B. Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
FILED ON: 17.11.2014 Advocate for the applicant
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
I.A.NOS. 73 & 76/2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10660/2010
Date : 20/11/2014
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
I.A.Nos. 73/2014
By this application, the applicants seek the following reliefs :-
(i) Direct the CBI Director Shri Ranjit Sinha not to interfere in investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G spectrum allocation being carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.
(ii) Pass further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
We have heard Shri Dushyant Dave and Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the parties and Shri Anand Grover, learned senior counsel, the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by this Court in the 2G spectrum case.
To protect and preserve the sanctity and the fair name of the institution including the reputation of the Office of the Director of CBI, we are not deliberately giving out elaborate reasons.
It would suffice for us to observe that the information furnished by the applicants is prima facie credible and therefore requires to be accepted.
Let it not be said by anybody, that we have not given any reasons while disposing of the application. We are reiterating this statement only to prevent flak from several quarters of the society. We would like to re-emphasize that elaborate reasons are not necessary, only to protect the reputation of the CBI from being tarnished.
In view of the above, we grant the aforesaid relief sought by the applicants and pass the following orders:-
(i) We recall our earlier order passed on 15.09.2014 so far as it relates to I.A. No.73 of 2014.
(ii) We direct Shri Ranjit Sinha, CBI Director not to interfere in the investigation and prosecution of the case relating to the 2G spectrum allocation that is carried out by the CBI, and to recuse himself from the case.
(iii) Shri Ranjit Sinha shall be replaced by the senior most officer of the investigating team, constituted by the CBI to investigate into the case relating to the 2G spectrum allocation and continue the proceedings further.
With the above observations, I.A. No.73 of 2014 (application for directions) is disposed of.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to all the parties.
In view of the order passed by us in I.A. No.73 of 2014, we need not express any opinion on the prayers made in I.A. No.76 of 2014 and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing for CBI and Enforcement Directorate has brought to our notice a news item published today in Times of India, New Delhi. The news item states: "Mr. Ranjit Sinha Director of CBI, informed the Supreme Court that his DIG, Shri Santosh Rastogi, who is incharge of the 2G scam probe, "appears" to be the "mole" who was leaking documents and file notings to Aam Aadmi Party leader and advocate Prashant Bhushan."
Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel of the applicant, files an affidavit before this Court. The affidavit reads as under:-
AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF PRASHANT BHUSHAN
I, Prashant Bhushan, s/o Shri Shanti Bhushan, having my office at 301, New Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court, New Delhi-110 001 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :
1. That I am the counsel for the appellants in the instant proceedings. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and competent and authorised to swear this affidavit.
2. During the hearing of the above application (IA 73) on 19.11.2014, a statement was made at the bar by Shri Vikas Singh, counsel for Shri Ranjit Sinha (Director, CBI) that the information contained in the affidavits filed by the appellants, have been supplied to me by the CBI DIG Shri Santosh Rastogi. The said statement has also appeared in newspapers today.
3. I submit that, though I am not in a position to disclose the identity of the source of information, but I can statethat the information has not been supplied to me by Shri Rastogi. I do not know Shri Rastogi, have not met him or spoken to him.
DEPONENT
In view of the affidavit, it is safe to say that Shri Rastogi, is not giving any information to anybody else or to Shri Prashant Bhushan.
Ordered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 463 OF 2012
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
In I.A. NO. 13 OF 2014
I, Kamal Kant Jaswal, Director of the Petitioner, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Director of the Petitioner No. 1 in the instant writ petition and being conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, am competent and authorized to swear this Affidavit. I have also been authorized by the other Petitioners to file this additional affidavit on their behalf.
2. The petitioners have filed the above application (IA 13) with the following prayers:…..
3. The said application was listed before this Hon'ble Court on 09.09.2014 when this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondents returnable on 19.09.2014.
4. The petitioners on 18.09.2014 moved another application (IA 19) with the prayer:…..
5. Both the aforesaid applications (IA 13 and 19) were listed before this Hon'ble Court on 19.09.2014 when this Hon'ble Court directed the Central Government to produce the appraisal report prepared by the DGIT on their investigations concerning alleged hawala operator Shri Moin Qureshi. This Hon'ble Court also directed the CBI not to file any more closure reports till further orders of the Court. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19.09.2014 adjourned the hearings on the aforesaid applications to 17.10.2014.
6. On 17.10.2014, the Union of India submitted the DGIT appraisal report concerning Shri Qureshi to this Hon'ble Court in a sealed cover. The Attorney General appearing for the Union of India orally informed the Court that the report contained information about the dealings and conversations of the alleged Hawala operator, Shri Moin Qureshi. He also stated that there were several "coded conversations" between Shri Qureshi and the former CBI Director, Shri A P Singh, currently Member, Union Public Service Commission, regarding illegitimate transactions. He clarified that there were no Blackberry conversations between Shri Qureshi and Shri Ranjit Sinha, the incumbent CBI Director, and that there only were hearsay statements about him. This Hon'ble Court indicated that it would peruse the said report and adjourned the hearings on the aforesaid applications to 08.12.2014.
7. It would also be pertinent to mention that an application seeking the removal of Shri Ranjit Sinha, Director, CBI, from the 2G Case investigation and prosecutions was moved by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) in the 2G Scam case being heard by a different bench of this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.11.2014 was pleased to allow the said application and directed Shri Sinha not to interfere in the 2G Case investigations and prosecutions. This order was passed after the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by this Hon'ble Court in the 2G cases, Shri Anand Grover, confirmed that the conduct of Shri Sinha was far from proper and amounted to serious interference in the 2G investigations and trial.
8. Subsequent to the last date of hearing, certain news reports disclosing facts that have a crucial bearing on these proceedings have come to the knowledge of the petitioners. The petitioners seek leave to place these reports on record through this affidavit.
9. In the application (IA 13), the petitioners had pointed out that as the Coal Scam investigations progressed, it came to light that Shri Sinha, along with a few other senior officers of the level of the Joint Director, repeatedly overruled the investigation officers and forced them to not to register FIRs/RCs in cases where PEs had been registered. He even forced them to file closure reports in cases where FIRs had already been registered. Faced with such a situation, this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the CBI to submit its reports to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in cases where the Inquiry Officers had recommended registration of a Regular Case, but had been overruled by the CBI Headquarters. Later, the CVC, agreeing with the investigation officers, categorically recommended the registration of Regular Cases in as many as 14 such cases in the first instance. This Hon'ble Court directed the CBI to abide by the view taken by the CVC. This clearly shows that the decision taken at the level of the CBI Director to close these cases was wrong and amounted to subverting the process of investigation.
10. It has now come to light that the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Supreme Court in the Coal Scam cases, Shri R S Cheema, has disagreed with the findings of Shri Sinha to file closure reports in several FIRs despite the fact that evidence of criminal culpability had been found against several companies, influential accused and public servants. Reportedly, Shri Cheema has written as many six letters to Shri Sinha concerning such sketchy and unwarranted closure reports. The closure reports in question have been found to be totally unsatisfactory and rejected by the Special Court dealing with the Coal Scam cases.
11. The petitioners in the said application (IA 13) had also pointed out that the entry register of 2013 and 2014 maintained at the gate of the official residence of Shri Sinha at 2, Janpath, New Delhi, shows that he had meetings, many of them late at night, at his residence with several accused persons in prominent cases like Coal Scam, 2G Scam, and with Hawala operators like Shri Moin Qureshi, without any of the investigation officers being present. According to the said application, there were visits by several of the Coal Scam accused, such as Shri Vijay Darda and Shri Devendra Darda, at the time Shri Sinha was trying to close the ongoing cases against them. The Dardas and Shri Sinha have not denied these meetings.
12. It has now come to light through a news report published in The Indian Express that in February this year, Shri Ranjit Sinha had overruled his agency colleagues to hold that there was no reason to prosecute Shri Vijay Darda, Member, Rajya Sabha; his son, Devendra Darda; Shri Santosh Bagrodia, former Coal Minister; and Shri H C Gupta, former Coal Secretary, in the Coal Blocks Allocation case. Shri Vijay Darda had written to Shri Manmohan Singh, the then Prime Minister, pressing for the allocation of a coal block in Bander, Chhattisgarh, to AMR Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd, which transferred Rs 24.6 crore to a firm owned by Shri Darda's son after AMR got the block. On receipt of Shri Sinha's objections, the CBI's Additional Legal Advisor, who had previously recommended prosecution, did a U-turn and cleared the Dardas. Barely two months later, Shri Sinha himself did a startling U-turn and gave orders to file a chargesheet against the Dardas, this time citing the same arguments he had once vehemently objected to. The chargesheet was filed on March 27 this year against the Dardas and AMR director Shri Manoj Jayaswal. Significantly, Shri Devendra Darda made five visits to Shri Sinha's residence between February 2 and February 14, 2014 when this curious flip-flop happened. There had been animated debates within the CBI before prosecution against the Dardas, Shri Santosh Bagrodia, Shri H C Gupta and Shri Jayaswal was recommended.
13. The CBI's key allegations against AMR is that Shri Vijay Darda tried to influence the outcome of coal block allotment by writing letters in favour of AMR to the Prime Minister, who also held charge of the Coal portfolio; that Shri Vijay Darda's son, Shri Devendra Darda, represented AMR in the Screening Committee that allotted the coal block, claiming to be Director of the company and gave misleading information to the Committee; and that a Jayaswal firm gave an unsecured loan of Rs 24.6 crore to a Darda company. In addition, the CBI also claimed that it had found evidence that while settling a "family feud," Shri Manoj Jayaswal in July 2008 made a provision for 26 percent shares of "coal block applicant companies to the person who is instrumental in getting the (Bander) Coal Block allotted". The CBI also claimed to have records of meetings at various locations between Shri Darda and Shri Jayaswal.
14. The case recommending chargesheet against Shri Darda and others was sent to Shri Sinha on February 4, 2014. Significantly, according to the visitor's logbook record of February 2 and February 3, 2014, Shri Devendra Darda spent 20 minutes and 15 minutes, respectively, at Shri Sinha's residence. In total, he made nine visits between February 2 and March 28, 2014. The logbook, which was opened in May 2013, does not record any earlier visit of Shri Devendra Darda. The CBI records show the period of these visits coincides with the period in which it changed its stand several times before eventually filing the chargesheet. On February 13, Shri Sinha wrote a strong rebuttal to the findings of his officers. Shri Devendra Darda had met Shri Sinha on two more occasions between February 4 and February 13, 2014. Shri Sinha made five key observations countering the arguments of his officers. He said that the case was built merely on "circumstantial evidence", that there was nothing wrong in Shri Devendra Darda attending the Screening Committee meeting on behalf of AMR because he had disclosed this fact; that there was no evidence to link the 24.6 crore payment with the allotment of the coal block, and anyways, this money had been paid back with interest. Significantly, the last reason given by Shri Sinha was not mentioned anywhere in the file.
15. The petitioners in their application (IA 19) had stated that by one count, Shri Moin Qureshi had visited Shri Sinha about 90 times in the last 15 months as reflected in the entry register of the CBI Director's residence. Shri Qureshi is being investigated by the Income Tax Department for Hawala dealings.
16. Contrary to the oral submission made by the Attorney General on the last date of hearing that in the course of its investigations of Shri Qureshi, the DGIT had not found any direct evidence against Shri Sinha, The Indian Express has revealed that there is crucial evidence against Shri Sinha in the DGIT report itself. The appraisal report goes into the details of the illegal operations of Shri Qureshi and his dealings with various individuals, including their conversations over Blackberry Messenger (BBM). Amongst others, there are several coded conversations between Shri Qureshi and the former CBI Director, Shri A P Singh, relating to delivery of money, fixing of meetings, etc.
17. According to the report of The Indian Express, some of these messages concern Shri Pradeep Koneru, businessman and son of Shri Prasad Koneru, a co-accused in a case of disproportionate assets filed by CBI against Shri Jaganmohan Reddy; Shri Aditya, an employee of Shri Qureshi; Shri V. V. Laxminarayana, the CBI Joint Director who had investigated the case; and of course, Shri Qureshi. The messages have one common theme, viz. Shri Pradeep Koneru's efforts to seek Shri Qureshi's help in the bail applications and discharge petitions filed by his father and his brother, Shri Madhu Koneru, who is a co-accused in what is commonly referred to as the Emaar-APIIC case.
18. On May 8, 2013, Shri Pradeep Koneru, Director of Trimex group, sent a message to Shri Qureshi, asking, "What's the best time to meet boss?" Shri Qureshi responded: "Afternoon". The BBM texts reveal that a few days later, Shri Pradeep was still persuading Shri Qureshi to set up a meeting with the "boss", whose identity becomes clearer in another exchange between the two on May 20. Shri Pradeep Koneru to Shri Qureshi: "It's important to meet boss. Do we have an appointment?". Shri Qureshi's reply: "Meeting confirmed today 2.30 pm". Shri Pradeep Koneru again: "Where do I meet you?" Shri Qureshi's response: "2 pm Defence Colony." Shri Qureshi's residence and office are in Delhi's Defence Colony. The logbook at Shri Sinha's residence showed that one "Kureshi", in a car bearing the registration number DL-7CG 3436, was there at 2.40 p.m. that day. The car mentioned in the text reportedly belongs to Shri Qureshi.
19. According to the The Indian Express report, the contents of the coded texts between Shri Qureshi and Shri Pradeep Koneru are worthy of note. On July 13, Shri Koneru texted Shri Qureshi: "I have sent 25 diaries today." In the same series, Shri Koneru texted Shri Qureshi: "Dog has left. Can boss speak to new JD?". Shri Qureshi responded: "Boss will call him to Delhi." Significantly, in another message, Shri Qureshi told Shri Pradeep Koneru: "Met Boss. He will speak to JD Chennai." In July 2013, CBI Joint Director Shri V. V. Laxminarayana, who had filed several chargesheets against Shri Jaganmohan Reddy, was repatriated to his parent cadre after the completion of his tenure even though there was a move to grant him an extension.
20. The said newsreport also reveals that in August 2013, Shri Prasad Koneru, Shri Pradeep Koneru's father, approached the Madras High Court seeking relaxation in his bail condition and the plea was granted. In this context, another set of messages between Shri Pradeep Koneru and Shri Qureshi assumes significance. On August 13, Shri Pradeep Koneru texted: "There is small delay. 250 mtr work will start from tomorrow". Shri Qureshi replied: "Do it asap. Its not good", and later added: "Pls finish remaining 450 mtr work. Thanks. I got reminder." Here are some of Shri Pradeep Koneru's messages to Shri Qureshi during that period: "Another 45 days to complete work. Business very bad. Pls help"; "Discharge petition of Madhu coming on October 13." When the Income Tax officials asked Shri Qureshi what the "work" mentioned in the messages was, he reportedly told them that he was referring to silk fabric. Then there is an exchange of texts between Shri Qureshi and Shri Aditya, an employee of Shri Qureshi's firm, Forum Sale. Shri Aditya wrote: "Received 50L from Pradeep". During questioning by Income Tax officials, Shri Qureshi reportedly said he could not "recollect the identity of Pradeep" mentioned in the text. However, investigators have in their possession an email received by Shri Aditya on September 7, 2013, which refers to the discharge petition filed in court by Shri Madhu Koneru. The sender's ID is pradeep@trimexgroup.com.
21. In the light of the above facts disclosing the abuse of office and criminal misconduct by Shri Sinha as CBI Director, Shri Prashant Bhushan has filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Delhi Police for registration of an FIR into the matter. However, it is learnt that no FIR has been registered by the ACB into the matter.
22. In view of the foregoing, the petitioners request this Hon'ble Court to direct a court-monitored investigation by an SIT or by the ACB of Delhi Police in the entire matter, which is crying out for an independent and thorough investigation. It is evident that the CBI cannot be trusted with this task since two of its former Directors and other senior functionries would be the subject matter of the investigation.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct, that no part of it is false and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Paragraphs 1 to 11 are correct to my knowledge. Paragraphs 12 to 14 are based on newspaper report. Paragraph 15 is correct to my knowledge. Paragraphs 16 to 20 are based on newspaper reports. Paragraph 21 is correct to my knowledge and paragraph 22 is by way of submission to the Court.
DEPONENT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 463 OF 2012
Date : 08/12/2014
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
I. A. No. 13 & 19
We have perused the appraisal report of the Income Tax department handed over by learned Attorney General on the last date of hearing.
We close the matter. No further orders are required on the appraisal reports. The reports have been returned to the learned Attorney General in the Court.
List I.A. No. 13 on 12.01.2015 at 2 p.m.
