The Supreme Court today stayed the Gauhati High Court verdict declaring the Central Bureau of Investigation “unconstitutional”.
The apex court relief came on an urgent petition filed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal ministry for the CBI. On Saturday, a Bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam dealt with the appeal at an extraordinary hearing at his residence.
After a 10-minute hearing, the Bench stayed the November 6 verdict of the High Court, which virtually crippled the agency, preventing it from performing its investigating and prosecuting functions in hundreds of cases across the country.
Citing the Gauhati High Court ruling, accused in “sensational cases”, including the 2G case, have sought halting of criminal proceedings.
“…there shall be a stay of operation of the final judgment and the impugned order dated November 6 passed by the Gauhati High Court,” said the Bench, which also included Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
It rejected the objections raised by counsel for Navendra Kumar, on whose petition the High Court had passed the verdict, that the DoPT was not authorised to file the Special Leave Petition as it was not a party in the High Court.
“Respondent 1 (Kumar) is permitted to raise all objections in his proposed reply,” the Bench said in its order. It asked his lawyer, L. S. Chaudhary, who accepted the notice, to file a reply within two weeks after which the Centre will respond.
Posting the matter for hearing on December 6, the Bench rejected the contention by Kumar’s lawyer that the Centre’s plea is a “collusive petition” as, instead of the CBI and the Ministry of Home Affairs, it has been filed by the DoPT, which was not a party in the High Court.
“The DoPT is an appropriate department. The CBI will file a separate appeal. We can’t dismiss DoPT’s appeal in limine (at the start),” the Bench said while taking note of Attorney-General G. E. Vahanvati’s submission that the CBI and the Ministry of Home will file separate appeals.
Questioning the findings of the High Court, the Attorney-General said the judgment was based on a wrong question and presumptions that led to a wrong conclusion. “You did not implead proper respondents before the High Court,” the Bench told Kumar’s lawyer.
“We read in the newspapers that many people are seeking a stay (of proceedings based on this judgment). We have to stay (the High Court’s order). You have read that the two accused in two sensational cases (of the CBI) have sought a stay of the trial. You file your objections. We will consider everything. Notice does not mean that we are rejecting your plea,” it said.
“We are concerned about all other cases (of the CBI),” the Bench observed.