News Analysis India

Tag: K K Venugopal

  • Centre has no role in CBI functioning: Government informs SC 

    By Express News Service

    NEW DELHI:  Stating that the Centre has no interference in the way cases are investigated by CBI, Attorney General K K Venugopal opposed a suit filed by West Bengal government which made the Centre a party in a case against CBI. It did not add the agency as a party.

    “Union Of India has nothing to do with the registration of criminal cases under DSPE Act or under Section 6 of the Act. Only officers under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act can register a case. A suit cannot be filed where CBI is not a party but the Centre is,” the AG said.

    A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao was hearing a suit filed by West Bengal government challenging a Calcutta High Court decision to order a CBI probe in cases of murder and crimes against women that allegedly took place in post-poll violence.

    Venugopal said the CBI and its officers are autonomous even from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

    He said the CVC Act has been given power to exercise superintendence over CBI in relation to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    The Centre’s affidavit contended that a state government’s order to withdraw consent for CBI to probe a case, amounts to ultra vires exercise.

    “Union of India (UoI) has not registered a single case. Nor does it have jurisdiction to register any criminal case. UOI has nothing to do with registering or investigating a case.”

    “UoI is not concerned with any of the issues and there is a special act ‘Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act’ and the officers of that establishment register and investigate a case. UoI is not the necessary party. Therefore a suit cannot be filed by the West Bengal government against the UoI as CBI is the concerned party,” the AG told the bench also comprising Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna.

    Venugopal submitted that CBI, set up under the DSPE Act, and its officers are autonomous and how they carry out an investigation cannot be interfered by the Centre.

    “Therefore registering and investigating an FIR is purely by an autonomous body. Article 131 is for dispute between the Centre and the States. The entire claim and relief is against the CBI. It is an autonomous body set up under the special Act of Parliament. How can relief be granted against me (Centre) not to register a case,” the AG said.

    Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for West Bengal, said there has been a complete mockery of the rules that the other side has made.

    “The suit will have to be allowed. No written statement has been made until now and there is no appearance,” Luthra submitted.

    The matter is posted for hearing after two weeks.

    The Centre had earlier told the top court that West Bengal’s power to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute and the probe agency is entitled to carry out investigations that are being carried out against Central government employees or have a pan-India impact.

    The Centre had submitted an affidavit in response to a lawsuit by the West Bengal government which alleged that the CBI is going ahead with the investigation in post-poll violence cases without securing the pre-requisite nod from the state under the law.

    It had said the apex court that the Union of India has not registered any case in West Bengal, nor has it been investigating any case.

    The affidavit had said that numerous investigations are being carried out against Central government employees or have either pan-India impact or impact on more than one state to investigate such offences.

    It had said the consent of West Bengal was sought for some offences but it is not understood as to why the state government came in the way of such an investigation which would have an inevitable effect of shielding those who are guilty of such multi-State/pan-India offences.

    The West Bengal government, in its original civil suit under Article 131 of the Constitution, referred to the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 and said that the Central Bureau of Investigation has been proceeding with the probe and filing FIRs without getting the nod from the state government as mandated under the statute.

    Under Article 131 the apex court has original jurisdiction to deal with disputes between the Centre and states.

    The CBI recently lodged multiple FIRs in cases of post-poll violence in West Bengal.

    The state government sought a stay of investigations into the FIRs lodged into post-poll violence cases by CBI in pursuance of the Calcutta High Court order.

    The suit said that as the general consent given to the central agency by the Trinamool Congress government has been withdrawn, the FIRs lodged cannot be proceeded with.

    It has also sought to stay for any such FIR in the future.

    (With PTI Inputs)

  • AG declines consent for contempt proceedings against Owaisi for remarks on Savarkar

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: Attorney General K K Venugopal has declined to give his consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi for his remarks that an inquiry commission had observed V D Savarkar was complicit in Mahatma Gandhi’s murder.

    A think tank had written to the AG seeking his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Owaisi for his remarks.

    Venugopal said it is true that the judgment of the top court also notes the fact that Savarkar has been found not guilty of Gandhiji’s murder in the criminal trial.

    However, if one reads the judgement as a whole, it is clear that the court was disinclined to go into the findings of the Justice Kapoor Commission of Inquiry, the AG said.

    “I may also point out that Justice Kapoor has retired as a judge of the Supreme Court in the year 1962, and hence was a retired judge when he was appointed as Commission of Inquiry in 1966.

    The statement made by Owaisi is relatable, therefore, to the finding of Justice Kapoor Commission and not the Supreme Court.

    “It would therefore be difficult to hold that he has committed contempt of the Supreme Court by suggesting and/or implying that a sitting judge of the Supreme Court had held that Savarkar was complicit in the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, which is completely contrary to factual reality. I am therefore constrained to decline consent for initiation of contempt proceedings against Owaisi,” the AG in his reply dated October 26 said.

    In a letter to Owaisi, the Abhinav Bharat Congress and its founder Pankaj Phadnis had referred to a Supreme Court judgement dated March 28, 2018 which stated, “The submission of the petitioner that Shri Savarkar has been held guilty for the murder of Gandhiji is misplaced.”

    “After this categorical assertion by the highest court of the country, where is the scope to suggest that Savarkar ‘murdered’ Gandhi ji, as you are reported to have said?” the think tank had said in its October 15 letter to Owaisi.

    In a letter to the AG on October 23, the think tank had said, “This has reference to our letter of October 15, 2021 addressed to Owaisi. You will notice that the said letter was a polite request to cease and desist from suggesting and/or imputing in any manner that Savarkar was held guilty of murder of Gandhi ji.”

    “It was expected that he would issue a clarification to set the record straight. Unfortunately, the said letter has not even been acknowledged by him. As such we seek your kind consent to initiate contempt of Supreme Court proceedings against Owaisi for his remarks on the subject,” the think tank had said.

    Slamming the RSS and BJP’s appreciation of Savarkar, Owaisi had recently claimed that by installing Savarkar’s portrait in Parliament, they were sending out a message that Mahatma Gandhi is not going to remain the Father of the Nation and that Savarkar would take his place.

    “What pinches me the most as a parliamentarian is that in the Central Hall of Parliament, on one side there is a photo of Mahatma Gandhi and right opposite to it, there is a photo of Savarkar, who was mentioned by Justice Jeevan Lal Kapur Commission,” he had told mediapersons.

    Savarkar was acquitted due to lack of corroborative evidence during the trial in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, he had said.

    Asked about RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s reported comments that Savarkar was not an enemy of Muslims and that he wrote ghazals in Urdu, Owaisi claimed that it is a recorded fact that Savarkar was against Urdu.

    He also demanded to know if Bhagwat would refuse the observations of the Justice Kapur Commission of Inquiry in its report that Savarkar was complicit in Mahatma Gandhi’s murder and part of the conspiracy.

  • COVID-19: Consider granting 90 more days limitation period to litigants for filing appeals: SC told

    The apex court had on March 23 last year invoked its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to extend the limitation period of appeals from courts or tribunals on account of the pandemic.