Reset the CBI clock

For five days, Jayalalitha has hogged the headlines. In ten days, I predict she shall be replaced by Pervez Musharraf. Yet I shall concentrate on an issue that has been largely ignored, one which focuses on institutions rather than two capricious individuals.

Three months ago, I wrote of the way some wings of the establishment seemed to be acting against the orders of the Supreme Court — and getting away with it. The Government of Delhi was told to check polluting buses from coming on the roads. If Sheila Dikshit has done anything to combat pollution, my lungs haven’t noticed it. The habit seems to be catching...

A little over seven months ago, on November 27, 2000, a Supreme Court bench heard a suo motu contempt petition. The judges were Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi. The alleged contemnor was S.K. Sundram. Harish Salve, the solicitor-general, was present to assist the court.

After hearing counsel, their lordships gave an order. Presently, I shall quote passages from this document, but the gist of it is perfectly clear. The Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to investigate the origin of a certain document, which the court had found was, prima facie, not genuine. The order specifically directed the investigating agency to finish its inquiry ‘‘as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months’’.

Take a look at the top of this page. We are in the first week of July, well over the suggested limit of three months. I know there can be creative interpretations of that word ‘‘preferably’’, but surely doubling the time limit is unacceptable!

I am sure everyone agrees that a slur cast on the chief justice of India is a serious matter. One fails to understand why the CBI has been so slow to react

I shall be happy to be proved wrong. It is possible the CBI has filed a report with the Supreme Court. But, to the best of my knowledge, this has not happened as I write. Nor, again as far as I know, has the Supreme Court registry reminded their lordships of this lapse. (Given their case-load, it is quite impossible for judges to follow up on every ruling they deliver.)

Why is this case so important? (Enough, please remember, that the Supreme Court asked the CBI to act as expeditiously as possible.) Well, I can do no better than to quote their lordships: ‘‘As it (the document) speaks about the age of Dr Justice Adarsh Sein Anand who is currently the Chief Justice of India we take it very seriously and deem it necessary to have a full investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, to know the details of how that document came into existence, and to trace out the person/persons responsible for creating it.’’

I am sure everyone agrees that a slur cast on the chief justice of India is a serious matter. The Supreme Court rightly referred the issue to India’s premier investigating agency. One fails to understand why the CBI has been seemingly so slow to react.

The document was supposedly sent by the general council of the Bar in London. I believe more than one CBI officer has been in London between November 2000 and July 2001. I do hope the Supreme Court’s directive was followed on at least one of these trips.

We need not go into the whole vexed issue of the age of the chief justice. That matter too was settled by the Supreme Court bench. I shall quote from the same ruling: ‘‘The question of age of Shri Adarsh Sein Anand has been decided by the President of India as per order dated 16/5/1991.’’ Their lordships also noted: ‘‘In view of Article 217(3) of the Constitution of India the President of India is the only authority having jurisdiction to decide that question. Hence the finality attained on that question is a reality.’’

Essentially, their lordships suggested, very gently, that there was no need to raise a stink over a nine year-old issue. But if they were polite, the bench was also determined to squash any rumours. It did not just direct the CBI to look into the matter, but also laid down guidelines: ‘‘We, therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court to forward a complaint to the SHO of the police station (within whose territorial limits the Supreme Court of India is situated) for registering the FIR.’’ The ruling continues: ‘‘After the FIR is registered the SHO concerned shall forward the FIR to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi for investigation.’’

Their Lordships also had a word for the agency: ‘‘On completion of the investigation the Central Bureau of Investigation shall submit the final report to the appropriate court and a copy of the final report shall be forwarded to this Court.’’

I am surprised at the seeming callousness with which this ruling has been greeted. Well, maybe that is a bit too strong. It is possible that the attitude of the investigators is not callous but casual. However, the result is the same — namely, no report has been filed as required.

Think about it for a moment. What is the first reaction when there is a scandal of some sort? They ask for either a judicial inquiry or a CBI probe. Here is an issue which threatened the reputation of the apex court, yet nobody seems in any hurry. What does it say of the CBI if it takes so much time even when prodded by the Supreme Court itself?

There is another small point. The court concluded the document was a forgery on the strength of ‘‘perusal of documents produced by the learned Solicitor-General’’. So the office of one of India’s chief law officers is also involved.

Their lordships gave the CBI a clean sheet of paper. ‘‘It is open,’’ they said in their order, ‘‘to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into any other allied documents now produced or would be seized by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation.’’ A clean sheet of paper seems to be all that has been produced after seven months of ‘‘investigation’’.

This may or may not be contempt of court in the legal sense. Their lordships are far better placed to judge that issue. But it does betray a certain contempt in the ordinary sense of the word. I certainly hope the court pulls up all concerned for laxity. The issue is not forgery, but the reputation of the Supreme Court.

Earlier Columns