Case Name: Alok Kumar Verma Vs Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 1
Equivalent Citations: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 64, 2019 SCC Online SC 23 : Common Cause Vs Union of India
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 1309 0f 2018
Case Type: Writ Petition
Petitioner: Alok Kumar Verma
Respondent: Union of India and Anr.
Statutes Referred:
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section: 4-A(1) and 4-B(2)
- The General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section: 14, 15, 16
- Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section: 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 4, 6, 11
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988– Section: 48, 49
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi (C.J.I) Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph.
Date of Judgement: 08/01/2019
Cases referred:
- Vineet Narain Vs Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226;
- Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47;
- Jai Singh Dalal Vs State of Haryana, (1993) Supp (2) SCC 600;
- Prakash Singh Vs Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1.
Facts:
- On 31/08/2018 cabinet secretary complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) alleging that the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Shri Alok Kumar Verma was involved in corruption.
- Following the inquiry following three orders were passed:
- On 23/10/2018, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) passed an order divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma who was the director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. vested in him as the Director of CBI.
- Following the aforementioned order, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training passed an order divesting him of the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. vested in him as the Director of CBI.
- The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training passed another order making Shri M. Nageshwar Rao an IPS officer and Joint Director of CBI had been asked to look after the duties and functions of the Director of CBI with immediate effect.
- The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the three orders passed.
Issues Involved:
- Do the Central Vigilance Commission’s powers of supervision extend to investigating charges against CBI personnel, under the CVC Act, 2003?
- Did the action taken against CBI Director Verma violate the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act?
- Did the action against CBI Director violate the rule of fixed tenure, which was introduced by the SC guidelines in Vineet Narain case?
Contentions by the Petitioners:
The Petitioner contended that:
- The interpretation of Central Vigilance Commission and Central Vigilance Commission Actshould be in such a way that it preserves, maintains and furthers the integrity, independence and majesty of CBI and its director who is the centre of power since that was the core intent behind the enactment of the legislation.
- The director is given an assurance of a tenure of not less than 2 years.
- It was urged that Section 4-B(2) of DSPE Act which states that “the director shall not be transferred except with previous consent of the committee” should be construed in the broadest sense including any attempt to divest the director of CBI of his powers etc. and therefore the orders won’t have any legal recognition since consent of the concerned committee was not taken
- No justification exists for the curtailment of tenure of the Director of CBI.
Contentions by the Respondent:
It was contented by the counsel for respondents that:
- Even the Director of CBI is a pubic/government servant and therefore amenable to rules and disciplinary control of the competent authority and therefore he is under the control of government and its orders even though there is no previous consent of the committee.
- The role of the Committee under Section 4-A(1) of the DSPE Act is limited to making recommendations on the basis of which the Central Government is to make the appointment and has no further legal authority.
- The present case is not a case of transfer but a case of divestment of power and since the Central Government has the power to vest the power it should also have the power to divest.
Judgement:
- The Honorable Supreme Court set aside the three orders by the CVC and the Central Government.
- Ordered the committee to consider the matter under Section 4A(1) of DSPE Act within a week from the date of the present order.
- Re-instated Alok Kumar Verma as the director of CBI till the decision of the committee is available and confined his role as the Director of CBI only to exercise the ongoing routine and barred him from taking any fresh initiative during the interregnum.
The Writ Petitions and IAs were disposed of.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The court said that the government did not have the power to pass the three orders because it would lead to extraneous influence on CBI and would be against the intent of the legislation.
- If the legislative intent would have been to confer in any authority of the State a power to take interim measures against the Director, CBI thereby affecting his functioning, surely, the legislation would have contained enabling provisions to that effect and consequently would have been differently worded and drafted.
- The provisions of provisions of the CVC Act, 2003 and the DSPE Act, 1946 require prior allowance of the committee before the government and CVC can pass the impugned orders.
- The IAs were dismissed because the court said that they were sequel to the three orders passed by the government and CVC and therefore it was not necessary to examine them as well.
Obiter Dicta:
The court said that the question of merit of the impugned decisions need not be pondered upon in the view of the decision on the jurisdictional decision.
Conclusion:
Certain institutions such as CBI require autonomy and freedom from extraneous influence so as to function at their best and in the way the legislation intended them to. This also requires that these legislations are interpreted in a way to keep alive the spirit in which they were intended to be used and this case stands as a pillar to make sure of the same and also made sure to stay within its jurisdiction and to give the committee its due authority with respect to admission and dismissal of director of CBI.
Drafted By: Sarwang Mathur (University School of Law and Legal Studies)
Published On: September 27, 2021 at 19:26 IST