CBI Chief Verma dismissal: Chowkidar’s true colours
Though the Supreme Court had ordered CBI chief Alok Verma to be reinstated into his position, the government has taken less than 24 hours to unseat him through a committee led by PM Narendra Modi. The objections recorded by Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge did not make a cut.
Ironically, the government had earlier mentioned Verma was sent on leave following the recommendation made by CVC, which was rejected by the court before it sought reinstatement of Verma. And on the basis of same accusations levelled by the CVC, Modi has transferred Verma. Which means even CVC did not articulate well on the accusations listed out on the officer.
The committee’s decision on Verma transfer was based on the recommendations made by the CVC. But the committee itself has not been able to substantiate any of the allegations it has levelled against Verma, which is largely based on the complaints listed out by the CVC.
There is one allegation that Verma has taken Rs 2 cr bribe from an industrialist, but this is unsubstantiated. The Central Vigilance Committee had said incidental witnesses had to be probed. Though there is a mention of some intelligence leads not being probed during his tenure, CVC has not been able to articulate on them. Three complaints among the 10 complaints have been ascertained, but the others are not substantiated as per the vigilance committee.
Even the veracity of allegations is under doubt. CVC has ascertained the fact that a suspect in IARTC case has not been mentioned as an accused in the subsequent FIR, CVC had observed.
The accusation of Verma unable to check gold trafficking in Delhi airport has been proved partially right. Kharge had argued that Verma should be allowed to finish his tenure while the investigation based on the CVC report is on. He had even said since Verma had lost 77 days of his service, his tenure should be extended by those many days to make good for the time lost.
But the central government was very stuck upon keeping Verma out of the office. The committee said allegations against him had to be proved and he cannot continue as the Chief of CBI. Another Judge has concurred with this recommendation made by Modi. This is nothing but an authoritarian situation. Committee has been reduced to just name sake.
This is a severe blow on the moral strength of CBI. Verma’s transfer is just name sake because the committee had probably even known the officer may not accept a transfer with his service lasting just about a month. As expected, Verma resigned from the post. Instead of slaving before the government, he has martyred his service to save his self respect. Someone like him is the hope of this country.
The whole incident has proved one thing beyond doubt. PM Modi fears the CBI. The people of this country know Modi has ensured Verma does not return as CBI chief following the Rafale deal which has left the government stark naked.
If not for the cover of power, Rafale by now is the major undoing of the government. Verma lost his job owing to his interest in investigating the Rafale deal. Modi, who would take pride in calling himself the Chowkidar, has whipped the CBI with his hunter. If he really was a gatekeeper of this country, why should he be scared of the CBI?
The house owner will really not throw a dog out just because he barked at something suspicious. Instead he would check around his house to see what’s lurking. Looks like Modi has admitted to the misdemeanors, by way of throwing out the investigating officer. This has gone to show the Chowkidar and the thief, to the nation.
The country is taking note of how CBI is being pressurized with Modi and his team continuing to be resistant of any investigation of Rafale deal. Modi is not bigger than the country and its security. He is totally deserving of a punishment if he has favoured a private company like Reliance over state run expert at aviation HAL.
In fact Modi has run HAL into the ground with this decision. Why does he fear an investigation if he has done no wrong in Rafale? The lone choice of proving himself innocent is by allowing an inquiry to take place. He cannot shut the mouth of the constitution and judiciary by misplacing a Verma. Modi would know that soon.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Justice Nagarathna calls for creation of judicial reforms commission to reduce pendency in courts
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
