1. Divestment of powers, functions, and supervisory role of the Director, CBI by the Central Vigilance Commission and Central Government under the CVC Act and DSPE Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Alok Kumar Verma – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1309 of 2018
Common Cause – Appellant
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1315 of 2018
Decided On : 08-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 4A and Section 4B of DSPE Act intends to ensure complete insulation of office of the Director, CBI from all kinds of extraneous influences, as well as to uphold integrity and independence of the institution of the CBI as a whole.
The power to take interim measures against the Director, CBI has not been conferred in any authority of the State.
Section 4A and Section 4B of DSPE Act intends to ensure complete insulation of office of the Director, CBI from all kinds of extraneous influences, as well as to uphold integrity and independence of the institution of the CBI as a whole.
The power to take interim measures against the Director, CBI has not been conferred in any authority of the State.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Headnote
DSPE Act, 1946 – Section 4A and Section 4B – Legislative intent – To ensure complete insulation of office of the Director, CBI from all kinds of extraneous influences, as well as to uphold integrity and independence of the institution of the CBI as a whole – In absence of any provision in the Act similar to section 6 of Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, it cannot be said that a power to take interim measures against the Director, CBI has been conferred in any authority of the State – Sections 14, 15 and 16, General Clauses Act, 1897 have no application. (Para 34, 37)
(1998) 1 SCC 226; (2006) 8 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(1991) 3 SCC 47; 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 600 – Referred
Facts of the case:
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 Director of the CBI. The exercise of said power by the aforesaid 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 Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 read with Section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The divestment of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Director, CBI of his functions, powers, duties and supervisory role, specifically, is in respect of all cases already registered and/or required to be registered and/or being inquired/enquired/investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The said order dated 23rd October, 2018 of the CVC was followed by an order of the Government of India, Ministry of 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 Director, CBI with immediate effect and until further orders.
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 functions of Director, CBI with immediate effect.
The legality and validity of the aforesaid three orders is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1309 of 2018 filed by Shri Alok Kumar Verma as well as in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1315 of 2018 filed by Common Cause a registered society.
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 from the CBI and for constituting a Special Investigating Team to go into the charges of corruption against the officials of the CBI and also the FIR lodged against Mr. Rakesh Asthana, Special Director, CBI.
Finding of the Court:
The power to take interim measures against the Director, CBI has not been conferred in any authority of the State.
Result: The three orders dated 23rd October, 2018 set aside. Writ petitions and all the IAs disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
-
statutory interpretation
- purposive construction (Para 36)
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, for Union of India; Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Manan Popli, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Adv., for the CVC; Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.C. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rahul Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. (AOR), for the CBI; Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shakun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Harshal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv., for the R-4; Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Varun Chopra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv. Mr. Javedur Rahman, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Aisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashwin G. Raj, Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar, Adv. (in I.A No. 161095, 161098 of 2018); Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Adv., Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. (AOR), Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv, (in I.A No. 157829, 157831, 165506, 165507of 2018); Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv, Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. (AOR) Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv.(in I.A. No. 165754, 165756 of 2018)
For the Appellant : Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash C. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, for Union of India; Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Manan Popli, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Adv., for the CVC; Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. V.C. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Rahul Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. (AOR), for the CBI; Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shakun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Harshal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv., for the R-4; Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Varun Chopra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv. Mr. Javedur Rahman, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Aisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashwin G. Raj, Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar, Adv. (in I.A No. 161095, 161098 of 2018); Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Adv., Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. (AOR), Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv, (in I.A No. 157829, 157831, 165506, 165507of 2018); Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv, Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. (AOR) Ms. Nupur Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Indra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv.(in I.A. No. 165754, 165756 of 2018)
Table of Contents
2. Whether divestment of powers constitutes a transfer under Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act requiring prior Committee consent versus an inherent government power to divest. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
3. Legislative intent requires complete insulation of the Director, CBI from extraneous influence to maintain institutional integrity, necessitating a broad interpretation of statutory protections against arbitrary removal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. The prohibition on transfer without Committee consent under Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act includes any action effectively divesting the Director of his powers and functions. (Para 36 )
5. Orders divesting the Director, CBI of powers and appointing an acting Director set aside; matter referred to the Selection Committee for consideration. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
6. Does the term transfer in Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act include the divestment of powers and functions of the Director, CBI?
Yes. To prevent the State from bypassing the Selection Committee's consent, transfer must be construed broadly to include any action that effectively disengages the Director from functioning or results in the cessation of the exercise of their powers. (Para 36 )
7. What is the legislative intent behind the appointment and tenure protections of the Director, CBI?
The intent is to ensure complete insulation of the office from extraneous influences and to uphold the integrity and independence of the CBI as the premier investigative and prosecuting agency. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 )
8. Can the General Clauses Act be used to imply a power to divest the Director, CBI of powers as a corollary of the power to appoint?
No. The specific provisions of the DSPE Act regarding the Director's tenure and the requirement for Committee consent create a clear intention to the contrary, overriding general implied powers under the General Clauses Act. (Para 37 )
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI.
1. That the Rule of law is the bedrock of democracy would hardly require any reiteration. However firmly entrenched the principle may be, it gets tested in a myriad of situations that confronts the courts from time to time. The present is one such occasion.
2. On 23rd October, 2018, the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CVC”) passed an order divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”) of the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. vested in him as the Director of the CBI. The exercise of said power by the aforesaid 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 Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the CVC Act”) read with Section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as “DSPE Act”). The divestment of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Director, CBI of his functions, powers, duties and supervisory role, specifically, is in respect of all cases already registered and/or required to be registered and/or being inquired/enquired/investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”).
3. The aforesaid order is stated to be in the nature of an interim measure till completion of an inquiry into the allegations contained in a complaint dated 24th August, 2018 submitted/forwarded by the Cabinet Secretary by letter dated 31st August, 2018 to the CVC.
4. The said order dated 23rd October, 2018 of the CVC was followed by an order of the Government of India, Ministry of 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 Director, CBI with immediate effect and until further orders.
5. 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 functions of Director, CBI with immediate effect.
6. The legality and validity of the aforesaid three orders is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1309 of 2018 filed by Shri Alok Kumar Verma as well as in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1315 of 2018 filed by Common Cause which claims to be a registered society established/founded in the year 1980 by one late Shri H.D. Shourie for the purposes of “ventilating the common problems of the people and securing their resolution”.
7. 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 (respondent no.4 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1315 of 2018) from the CBI and for constituting a Special Investigating Team (“SIT” for short) to go into the charges of corruption against the officials of the CBI and also the FIR lodged against Mr. Rakesh Asthana, Special Director, CBI, details of which are mentioned in the writ petition filed by Common Cause.
8. The order of the CVC dated 23rd October, 2018 is fairly long and elaborate. What is essentially stated therein is that a complaint dated 24th August, 2018 was forwarded to the CVC by the Cabinet Secretary by letter dated 31st August, 2018 which, prima facie, revealed charges of corruption against the Director, CBI, Shri Alok Kumar Verma. The CVC considered it worthwhile to take note of the contents thereof and had sought the explanation/comments of the Director, CBI along with the relevant record(s). According to the CVC, instead of cooperating in the matter, the Director, CBI
