2019 (1) TMI 1023 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Protects CBI Director's Powers, Emphasizes Committee's Role

Alok Kumar Verma Versus Union of India & Anr. [Common Cause Versus Union of India & Ors.]

Alok Kumar Verma Versus Union of India & Anr. [Common Cause Versus Union of India & Ors.] - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the orders divesting the CBI Director of his powers.2. Competence of the CVC and Government of India to divest the CBI Director without prior consent of the Committee under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act.3. Interpretation of the term 'transfer' under Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act.4. Application of Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.5. Adequacy and relevance of reasons for the impugned decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Orders Divesting the CBI Director of His Powers:The Supreme Court examined the orders dated 23rd October 2018, passed by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Government of India, which divested the CBI Director of his powers, functions, duties, and supervisory role. These orders were challenged in writ petitions filed by the CBI Director and a registered society. The Court noted that the orders were issued as interim measures pending an inquiry into allegations of corruption against the CBI Director.2. Competence of the CVC and Government of India to Divest the CBI Director Without Prior Consent of the Committee Under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act:The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Sections 4A and 4B of the DSPE Act was to ensure the complete insulation of the CBI Director from extraneous influences. The Court held that any action affecting the CBI Director's functioning must have the prior consent of the Committee constituted under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act. The Court found that the impugned orders were issued without obtaining such consent, rendering them nonest in law.3. Interpretation of the Term 'Transfer' Under Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act:The Court interpreted the term 'transfer' in Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act broadly to include any attempt to divest the CBI Director of his powers, functions, duties, etc., in any manner. The Court reasoned that a narrow interpretation, limited to a change from one post to another, would negate the legislative intent of insulating the CBI Director from extraneous influences.4. Application of Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:The Court rejected the argument that Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, conferred a power in the Central Government to pass the impugned orders. The Court held that the specific provisions of the DSPE Act, as amended, took precedence over the General Clauses Act, and the legislative intent was to ensure the independence of the CBI Director.5. Adequacy and Relevance of Reasons for the Impugned Decisions:The Court noted that not much argument was made on the relevance or sufficiency of the grounds for the impugned decisions. The Court's decision to set aside the orders was based on the jurisdictional issue of prior consent, rendering the examination of the reasons for the decisions unnecessary.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 23rd October 2018, divesting the CBI Director of his powers, functions, duties, and supervisory role. The Court directed that the matter be considered by the Committee under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act within a week. The CBI Director, upon reinstatement, was directed to cease taking any major policy decisions until the Committee's decision. The Court disposed of the writ petitions and interlocutory applications, leaving the parties with the remedy of challenging consequential orders in an appropriate manner.