Supreme Court to hear on Monday version of CVC which probed CBI director Alok Verma
New Delhi, Nov 11 : The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday the version of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was directed to complete within two weeks its preliminary inquiry against CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma, who has been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the Centre.
The hearing assumes significance as Verma, who has a running feud with Special CBI Director Rakesh Asthana, has been appearing before the three-member CVC headed by K V Chowdary and is understood to have given point-wise refusal to all the allegations levelled against him by his deputy.
Verma's plea, which had been heard by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on previous occasions, is now listed for hearing on November 12 before a two-judge bench comprising the CJI and Justice S K Kaul.
The decision that a smaller bench would hear the case has come after the CJI, in his recent informal interaction with journalists, said that on Mondays and Fridays, when the apex court hears miscellaneous cases, only two-judge benches would sit.
The court had appointed former apex court judge A K Patnaik to supervise the ongoing inquiry of CVC against Verma.
Besides issuing notices to the Centre and the CVC on the plea of Verma, the apex court, on October 26, had also set a deadline of two weeks for the CVC to complete the preliminary inquiry against the CBI director.
It had also barred IPS officer M Nageswara Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision.
The top court on Monday would also peruse the decisions taken by Rao from October 23, including transfer of investigations and change of investigating officers and may pass some appropriate orders on them.
It had said that a list of all the decisions taken by Rao between "October 23, 2018 and up to this hour including decisions with regard to transfer of investigations, change of investigating officer(s) etc will be furnished to the court in a sealed cover on or before November 12, 2018 where after orders as would be appropriate will be passed by the court."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CVC, had said that the CVC has been conducting an inquiry into the allegations made in the August 24 note/letter of the Cabinet Secretary with regard to Verma.
Besides the plea filed by Verma, the court is also seized of the PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, which has sought a probe by special investigation team against CBI officers including Asthana, and had issued notices to the Centre, CBI, CVC, Asthana, Verma and Rao asking them to respond to it by November 12.
Asthana has also moved the Supreme Court with a separate petition in the matter and has sought removal of Verma from the post of CBI Director.
"We want to see preliminary probe report in 10 days to decide whether it requires further probe," the bench had said.
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.
Delhi HC Judge Justice Sharma to pass order on recusal plea by Kejriwal at 4.30 pm
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said that she would pronounce her verdict at 4.30 pm on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings by the AAP chief on his plea.
Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was "going out of her way" in accepting Kejriwal's rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.
The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the CBI.
Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry's refusal to take his rejoinder on record was "miscarriage of justice", Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went "out of its way" for him when it permitted him to file his additional affidavit last week even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved.
The judge said that as per the registry's rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case was not "extraordinary", the same practice was being followed.
She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a "rejoinder" to the opposite party's written submissions, and she would permit Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard.
"You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal," the court stated.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal's request to file rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country were pleadings taken on record after order was reserved a court.
He also said there is no concept of filing rejoinder to a written submission, and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
He also claimed that Justice Sharma had made "strong and conclusive" findings.
The former Delhi chief minister further alleged a "direct conflict of interest", claiming that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the matter for the CBI.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for recusal of the judge were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal.
Solicitor General urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others for seeking her recusal.
Terming concerns by Kejriwal and others as "apprehensions of an immature mind," Mehta told the court it was a matter of "institutional respect" and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on "unfounded allegations" would set a bad precedent.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, saying that the CBI's case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
