Alok Kumar Verma V/s Union Of India
In order to maintain the integrity and independence of the institution of CBI, there ought to be a complete insulation of the office of the Director, CBI from all kinds of extraneous influences.  [Case Brief] Alok Kumar Verma V/s Union Of India Case name: Alok Kumar Verma vs. Union of India    Case number: Writ Petition (Civil) number-1309 of 2018 Court: The Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K.M. Joseph Decided on: JANUARY 08, 2019 Relevant Act/Sections: Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 ( Sec. 4, 6 and 8), Delhi Special Police Establishment  Act,1946 ( Sec. 4(1),4 A and 4(B) )    On 23rd October, 2018, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) passed an order under Section 8(1) (a) and 8(1) (b) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (the CVC Act) divesting the petitioner who is the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. vested in him as the Director of the CBI.On the same date an order was also passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel &amp; Training divesting the petitioner from exercising his functions and powers as the Director, CBI and by another order passed by this department Nageshwar Rao who was the Joint Director, CBI was asked to look after the duties and functions of Director, CBI.The legality of these orders has been challenged in the present writ petitions, one of which is filed by Shri Alok Kumar Verma and the other is filed by Common Cause.Various interlocutory applications were also filed by some CBI officers challenging the corruption charges registered against them and prayers were made for constitution of a Special Investigating Team (‘SIT’) for carrying out the investigations. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT: Whether the CVC and the Central Government were competent to divest the petitioner of his powers as the CBI Director before the expiry of his tenure? RATIO OF THE COURT: The Court opined that in order to understand the true legislative intent behind the acts in question the court cannot ignore the guidelines laid down by this court in Vineet Narain and Others Union of India and Another (1998) 1 SCC 226. In that case it was held that in order to ensure that the agencies like CBI discharge their duties in a proper manner it is necessary that the important offices of this institution are permanently insulated from any extraneous influence.The guidelines laid by this court in Vineet Narain’s case have played an important role in giving the CBI and CVC a pivotal position in our legal system. The guidelines laid down in that case as are apt in the instant case are as follows: The CVC was given a statutory status.The Central Vigilance Commissioner is to be appointed by the President on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity (as incorporated in Section 4 of the CVC Act).The Director, CBI must be appointed on the basis of the recommendations of the committee that was to be headed by the CVC and has the Home Secretary and Secretary (Personnel) as the member and the views of the incumbent Director shall be also considered by the Committee. The final selection shall be made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee.The Director, CBI shall have tenure of two years.The transfer of an incumbent Director, CBI was to be approved by the Selection Committee. According to section 4A (1) of the DSPE Act the Director, CBI is to be appointed on the recommendations of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (as the chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in the House of People and the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him. According to Section 4B the Director, CBI shall continue to hold his office for a period not less than two years notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the rules relating to his conditions of service and he shall not be transferred except with the prior consent of the Committee mentioned in section 4A (1).It was observed that the legislative intent behind enacting the Acts in question was clear that in order to uphold the integrity and independence of the institution of the CBI as a whole it is inevitable that the office of the Director, CBI is completely insulated from all sorts of extraneous influences.The Director, CBI is to be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of a High Power Committee. Section 6 of the CVC Act gives the President the power to remove the CVC on certain specified grounds and also empowers the President to pass a suspension order from the office during the pendency of inquiry when a reference is made to the Supreme Court but no provision with regard to interim suspension or removal of the Director, CBI is found in the DSPE Act, 1946. The only provision in respect of the CBI Director as contained in section 4B (2) provides that Director shall not be transferred except with the previous consent of the committee constituted under section 4A (1).If the legislature wanted to curtail the functions of the Director by conferring on any state authority the power to pass interim orders against the Director then it would have expressly stated that in the statute or would have provided enabling provisions in that behalf. Since this is not the case the word ‘transferred’ in section 4B (2) of the DSPE Act cannot be understood in its ordinary parlance as being limited to a change from one post to another. The word ‘transferred’ as appearing in the section must include all the aspects that have a bearing on the office of the Director including his divestment.The institution of CBI must be kept away from all the external influences so that it can perform its role as the premier investigating and prosecution agency without any fear and favor and in the best public interest. The head of the institution, namely, the Director, must act as a role model of independence and integrity and this can be achieved only when his office is free from all kinds of control and interference except to the extent that Parliament may have intended. This institution must be free from the interference of any public authority and interference should only be made when the public interest at large is the necessity of the situation and the adequacy of this necessity can be examined only by the Committee constituted under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act. DECISION HELD BY COURT: In this case the judgment was given by JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI that the writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions: The orders dated 23rd October, 2018 divesting the petitioner of his functions, powers, duties and supervisory role as the Director, CBI were set aside.The order by which IPS Nageshwar Rao was asked to look after the duties and functions of Director, CBI was also set aside.It was held that the matter should now be considered by the Committee constituted under Section 4A (1) of the DSPE Act and the Committee shall give its decision within a week.The petitioner was to be reinstated as the Director, CBI but he should not make any major policy decisions and his task as the Director must be confined only to the ongoing routine tasks till the time the Committee gives its decision.Regarding the various IAs filed by various officers it was said that it is not necessary for this court to determine their correctness but the parties have the opportunity of challenging them before an appropriate forum.    
That the Rule of law is the bedrock of democracy On 23rd October 2018 the Central Vigilance Commission passed an order divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma Director Central Bureau of Investigation of the powers functions duties supervisory role etc. vested in him as the order dated 23rd October 2018 signed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner and two other Vigilance Commissioners holding office is stated to be under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the as “the CVC Act”) read with Section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Act”). The divestment of Shri Alok Kumar Verma Director CBI of his functions powers duties and supervisory role specifically is registered and or being inquired enquired investigated under contained in a complaint dated 24th August 2018 submitted forwarded by the Cabinet Secretary by letter dated The said order dated 23rd October 2018 of the CVC Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training of the same date i.e. 23rd October 2018 divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma Director CBI of his functions powers duties and supervisory role in any manner as the There is yet another order of the same date i.e. 23rd October 2018 of the Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel Training by which one Shri M. Nageshwar Rao IPS Joint Director CBI has been asked to look after the duties and In addition to interference with the aforesaid three orders in the writ petition filed by Common Cause further prayers have been made inter alia seeking removal of one Mr Rakesh Asthana Special Director CBI to go into the FIR lodged against Mr. Rakesh Asthana Special Director CBI details of which are mentioned in the writ petition filed by the Cabinet Secretary by letter dated 31st August 2018 which prima facie revealed charges of corruption against the Director to take note of the contents thereof and had sought the explanation comments of the Director CBI along with the in the matter the Director CBI had sought information as to the identity of the person who had complained to the Cabinet Asthana. Details of several cases of corruption wherein the Special Director CBI was alleged to be involved were also further recorded that Shri Rakesh Asthana Special Director CBI had also made serious allegations against Shri Alok Kumar Verma Director CBI and that in fact on 15th October 2018 the Director CBI. At the same time the CVC also took note of the fact that Mr. Rakesh Asthana Special Director CBI had recorded invoke its powers under Sections 8(1)(a) 8(1)(d) and 11 of the CVC Act to pass the impugned order dated 23rd October 2018 divesting the Director CBI of his powers functions duties etc. The two further orders of the Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training of the same date i.e. 23 rd October 2018 were consequential to the order passed by the As already seen it is the legality validity and correctness of the aforesaid orders and the action spelt out therein that has been challenged before us in the two writ petitions as well as in the Interlocutory Applications filed by under the provisions of this Act no person out an exception to the Police Act 1861. The same is evident Constitution and powers of police Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act 1861 the Central Government the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation in any Union Territory of offences Initially the administration of the Delhi Special Section 4 of the DSPE Act which contemplated the Superintendence and administration of Police Establishment shall vest in the Central The administration of the said police in this behalf by the Central Government who shall exercise in respect of that police police force in a State as the Central It is the Delhi Special Police Establishment brought into existence by DSPE Act 1946 which today is known as the and 31 of the report of this Court in Vineet Narain 1 SCC 226 Shortly put and as already observed investigation of anti­ corruption cases economic offences and ordinary crimes of special importance have come to be vested in the CBI which investigative and prosecution agency of the country. The high stature and the pre­eminent position that the institution has acquired is largely on account of a strong perception of the the day to introduce reforms from time to time so as to enable the institution to reach greater heights in terms of integrity In Vineet Narain such developments have already been taken note of in detail. The recommendations of the Committee headed by Shri N.N. Vohra constituted by Government Order No. S 7937 SS(ISP) 93 dated 9th July 1993 enforcement in the country. Incidentally the CVC had been in existence as an administrative body on being established by the CVC Act 2003 on the basis of recommendations of the IRC 1. CVC to be conferred statutory status appointment of Central Vigilance Commissioner to be made under the hand and seal of the 2. Constitution of a Committee for selection of 4. CBI’s reporting to Government to be streamlined without diluting its functional Report on the CBI’s functioning after the 6. Constitution of a Selection Committee for identifying a panel of names for selection of Governments to set up credible mechanism for 9. Transfer of incumbent Director CBI would need endorsement of the Selection Committee 10. Director CBI to ensure full freedom for allocation of work within the Agency including 12. Change in the existing Tenure Rules not methods of investigation etc. to be decided 14. No need for creation of a permanent core 15. Severe disciplinary action against officers who deviate from prescribed investigation 16. Director CBI to be responsible for ensuring time­limits for filing charge­sheets in courts 17. Document on CBI’s functioning to be 19. Secretaries to adhere strictly to prescribed time­frames for grant of permission for decision not conveyed within the specified time 20. Secretary of Administrative Ministry to convey a decision regarding registration of not satisfied with decision Director CBI free to cover offences like bribery when prima facie 22. Cases of disproportionate assets of Central 23. Time­limit of 3 months for sanction for the Attorney General or the Solicitor General additional time of one month could be allowed 24. Government to undertake a review of the by the CBI to retain focus on anti­corruption activities which is its primary objective as members. The views of the incumbent Director shall be considered by the Committee for making the best choice. The on the basis of their seniority integrity experience in investigation and anti­corruption work. The final selection shall be made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet the Prime Minister the Minister of Home Section 6 of the CVC Act contemplates the removal of Central Vigilance Commissioner and a Vigilance Commissioner only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity as may be found by the Supreme Court. However under sub­sectionof Section 6 of the CVC pending inquiry on the reference made to the Supreme Court President to remove from office the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner in the following opinion of the Central Government involves d). is in the opinion of the President unfit to Though the Director CBI is to be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of a similar High or removal is to be found in the DSPE Act 1946 notwithstanding Act 2003. The CVC Act 2003 and the amendments made in the in proximity to the directions issued by this Court in Vineet Section 8 of the CVC Act deals with functions and 1). The functions and powers of the a) exercise superintendence over functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988or an offence with which 1974) be charged at the same trial b). give directions to the Delhi Special Police responsibility entrusted to it under sub­section 1) of section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Provided that while exercising the powers of superintendence under clause or giving directions under this clause the Commission to investigate or dispose of any case in a Government wherein it is alleged that a public servant being an employee of the Central Government or a corporation established by or under any Central Act Government company society and any local authority owned or controlled by that Government has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Procedure 1973be charged at the to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials that he has committed an offence under the and an offence with which a public servant of Criminal Procedure 1973 be e). review the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988or the public servant may 1974) be charged at the same trial with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988g). tender advice to the Central Government Act Government companies societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central to it by that Government said Government or controlled by the Central Government or h). exercise superintendence over the of the Central Government or corporations established by or under any Central Act Government companies societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Provided that nothing contained in this clause exercise superintendence over the Vigilance Commission to issue directions relating to any a). members of All­India Services serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and b). such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any Central Act authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government as that Government may by Provided that till such time a notification is corporations companies societies and local authorities shall be deemed to be the persons proviso to sub­section of Section 20 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013the such level of officials or staff of the Act Government companies societies and other local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government as that Government may Provided that till such time a notification is the said corporations companies societies and local authorities shall be deemed to be the The Commission shall while conducting any Procedure 1908and in particular in b. requiring the discovery and production of d. requisitioning any public record or copy The provisions of the DSPE Act as amended by Act 2014 may also require a specific notice. Sections 4 4A and 4B introduced by the “4. Superintendence and administration of 1) The Special Police Establishment.— superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 shall vest in the the superintendence of the said police establishment in all other matters shall vest in 3) The administration of the said police in this behalf by the Central Government exercise in respect of that police establishment 1) The Central Government shall appoint the Director on the recommendation of the 3) The Committee shall recommend a panel of a) on the basis of seniority integrity and Indian Police Service constituted under the All­ India Services Act 1951for being 4B. Terms and conditions of service of notwithstanding anything to the contrary 2) The Director shall not be transferred except with the previous consent of the Committee Shri F.S. Nariman and Shri Dushyant Dave learned Verma Director CBI and Common Cause have contended that the history of the institutional framework surrounding the CBI leading to the statutory enactments in question and the views expressed in the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain supra) including the operative directions under Article 142 of should must always be to preserve maintain and further the integrity independence and majesty of the institution i.e. CBI amendments thereto details of which have been noticed. The Director of the CBI is the centre of power in an abundantly powerful organization having jurisdiction to investigate and to and consequences on public life. There can be no manner of external interference if the CBI has to live up to the role and fullest measure. This is how the provisions of the cognate legislations i.e. the CVC Act 2003 and DPSE Act 1946 must be interpreted according to the learned must be construed in the broadest perspective to include any attempt to divest the Director CBI of his powers functions duties etc. in any manner whatsoever and not necessarily relatable to the transfer of the incumbent as is understood in ordinary parlance. According to the learned counsels unless so would be the entire judicial exercise culminating in the So construed according to the learned counsels the exercise of power in the present case is blatantly and patently the strength of the impugned orders which have been notified without seeking the previous consent of the Committee for appointment of Director CBI constituted under Section 4A(1) of in service jurisprudence the ultimate validity of the impugned Director CBI. No such justification according to the learned counsels exists. In this regard it has been pointed out that the allegations against the Director CBI made by Special Director the interregnum i.e. pendency of the inquiry are wholly in the larger public interest by this Court in the exercise of The aforesaid argument has been countered by Shri K.K. Venugopal learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India who contends that the role of the Committee under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act is limited to making once the recommendation is made by the Committee and the appointment is made the Committee becomes functus officio recognize in any incumbent who may have been recommended a right to be appointed it cannot be contended that after the appointment is made the Committee constituted to make recommendations for appointment has to be consulted in all 23 SCC 47 3 1993 Supp.SCC 600 pointed out provides mandates the requirement of previous consent only in cases of transfer of the Director which is also report in Vineet Narain of the DSPE Act. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897 to power to divest the Director CBI of his powers functions duties be acknowledged to be the logical corollary of the power of On the other hand Shri Tushar Mehta learned the Director CBI the incumbent does not cease to be a public servant government servant. He continues to be according to the learned Solicitor General a civil servant a member of the Indian Police Service amenable to all service conditions as Authority. The only exception in this regard according to the is concerned that stands diluted affected by the provisions of In brief these are the broad submissions of the contesting parties. It has been further supplemented by the learned counsels for the petitioner that on a meaningful be taken except with the previous consent of the Committee ceases to hold the post of Director upon transfer or otherwise made with the previous consent of the Committee that the The contentions advanced by the rival parties would powers functions duties supervisory role etc. without obtaining the prior consent of the Committee constituted under Section of the Director CBI. Learned counsels for the petitioners are operative directions issued by this Court in paragraph 58 of Vineet Narain inasmuch as the object for change of the Committee for making recommendations for appointment of the Director CBI has been stated to be the selection of Director of the Delhi Special Police before engrafting the consequential directions contained in paragraph 58 of Vineet Narain in the form of statutory enactments details of which have been noticed earlier. In this This experience revealed to us the need for the insulation of these agencies from any extraneous influence to ensure the continuance need which has impelled us to examine the structure of these agencies and to consider the insulation to the agencies against extraneous influences to enable them to discharge their duties in the manner required for proper implementation of the rule of law. Permanent constitution and the permanent measures The faith and commitment to the rule of law of which rule of law is the bedrock. The basic so high the law is above you ” has governed all by everyone including the Government of India the need for insulation of the CBI from continuance of this situation with a view to This is the need of equality guaranteed in the like this is that of the Indian polity and not on this Court by the Constitution are ample to These are the basic facts that cannot be overlooked while gathering the intention of the legislature in making the doubt that the clear legislative intent in bringing the aforesaid provisions to the statute book are for the purpose of ensuring complete insulation of the office of the Director CBI from all kinds of extraneous influences as may be as well as for years to the Director General of Police of the State expressly tenure on certain specified grounds & 8 SCC 1 the office of the Director CBI is concerned except what is contained in Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act namely that “the Director shall not be transferred except with the previous consent of the Committee referred to in sub­section of section 4A”. As already noticed Section 4B including sub­ section thereof of the DSPE Act as it exists on date were brought in by the same legislation i.e. CVC Act of the DSPE Act in whom the power to make recommendations for appointment of the Director has been vested by Parliament. This alone can provide an adequate safeguard to ensure the independence of the office keeping in view the legislative intent as found and held by us. In this having undergone an upward movement by the amendment and insulating the office of the Director from any kind of extraneous influence has been foremost in the mind of There is yet another issue of significance that arises debate that has taken place. This is with regard to the application of Sections 14 15 and 16 of the General Clauses Act the impugned orders including the order of appointment of an views on the true and correct meaning of the provisions contained in Sections 4A & 4B of the DSPE Act leaves us convinced that the aforesaid provisions of the General Clauses on the relevance or the sufficiency of the grounds shown and disclosed for the impugned decisions. This is perhaps on the negative decision on the jurisdictional question. The inherent limitation in such an exercise of if at all is to be undertaken is Consequently in the light of our views as expressed of the CVC divesting the powers functions duties supervisory role etc. of Shri Alok Kumar of the Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Verma Director CBI of his functions powers iii) of the Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training by which one Shri M Nageshwar Rao IPS Joint Director CBI has been asked to look after the duties and functions of 40. Our interference as above will now require the matter to be Act 1946 which may be so done at the earliest and in any case within a week from the date of this order. A meeting of the Committee may be accordingly convened by the competent ground indicated above we deem it proper to direct that the petitioner Shri Alok Kumar Verma Director CBI upon decisions till the decision of the Committee permitting such actions and decisions becomes available within the time frame indicated. We further make it explicit that the role of the are a sequel of the three orders dated 23rd October 2018 which were specifically impugned in the writ petitions. As we have not consider it necessary to examine the correctness of the of challenging the said consequential orders in an appropriate Both writ petitions and all the IAs are accordingly