Alok Kumar Verma v. Union of India 

CASE TITLE: Alok Kumar Verma v. Union of India 

BENCH: Justice Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K.M. Joseph

CITATION: WRIT PETITION NO. 1309 WITH 1315 OF 2018

PETITIONER: ALOK KUMAR VERMA 

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA 

DATE OF JUDGEMENTS: 08/01/2019

FACTS

• On 31/08/2018 cabinet secretary complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) alleging that the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Shri Alok Kumar Verma was involved in corruption.
• Following the inquiry following three orders were passed:
  • On 23/10/2018, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) passed an order divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma who was the director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. vested in him as the Director of CBI.
  • Following the aforementioned order, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training passed an order divesting him of the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. vested in him as the Director of CBI. 
  • The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training passed another order making Shri M. Nageshwar Rao an IPS officer and Joint Director of CBI had been asked to look after the duties and functions of the Director of CBI with immediate effect.
• The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the three orders passed.

ISSUES

• Do the Central Vigilance Commission’s powers of supervision extend to investigating charges against CBI personnel, under the CVC Act, 2003?
• Did the action taken against CBI Director Verma violate the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act?
• Did the action against CBI Director violate the rule of fixed tenure, which was introduced by the SC guidelines in Vineet Narain case?

CONTENTION BY THE PETITIONERS

The Petitioner contended that:

1. Learned Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioners had submitted that the interpretation of the relevant statutes shall adhere to the views of the Vineet Narain⁴ case and must “preserve, maintain and further the integrity, independence and majesty” of the CBI. In that view, it had been submitted that hence, the Director shall be given an insulated tenure of a minimum of two years if the CBI is to perform its duties up to its potential and without any hindrance. This is how the CVC Act and the DSPE Act, according to the Learned Counsels, must be interpreted.
2. It had also been submitted that Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act, regarding the transfer of the Director, states that the divestment Order cannot happen without the previous consent of the Committee. For its relevance, this Section shall be interpreted in “the broadest perspective”² to include all the attempts to move or remove the Director, in addition to the ordinary meaning of transfer. Otherwise, the legislative intent shall be rendered futile and inconsistent with the guidelines laid down in the guidelines of the Vineet Narain⁴ case.
3. Lastly, it had been argued that such action had been invalid as there had been no justification for the premature curtailment of the said tenure of the Director, CB

CONTENTION BY THE RESPONDENT

1. Learned Counsel from the Respondent side had contended that the role of the Committee under Section 4A(1) of the DSPE Act is limited to making recommendations for the appointment by the Central Government and has no legal role after that, citing the cases of Shankarsan Dash v Union of India[5] and Jai Singh Dalal v State of Haryana[6], and added that the requirement of previous consent comes only in the cases of transfers and nothing else.
2. It had further been contended that the Central Government has adequate authority to divest the Director, CBI as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It had been observed that if the Government can appoint a servant, it has the authority to remove him as well.
3. It had also been argued that merely because a member of the Indian Police Service is appointed as the Director, CBI, he shall remain the same and such position does not make him immune to any disciplinary control by the competent authority.

JUDGEMENT

Giving due consideration to the rationale of both sides, the three-judge bench had unanimously given the judgement to quash the three Orders challenged, dispose of the Petitions and the Interlocutory Applications (IA), and reinstate the Petitioner-Alok Kumar Verma as the Director of the CBI. Regarding this, the Apex Court had explained that the CVC and the government did not have the authority to pass the impugned Orders as that shall be inconsistent with the intent of the legislation and by doing such, the institution of CBI shall suffer from extraneous influence. The Hon’ble Court had further observed that if there had been a legislative intent to confer any authority to remove the Director for investigation charges as an interim measure, such provisions would have been duly drafted in the statutes. Furthermore, the provisions of the CVC Act and the DSPE Act state the requirement of prior permission from the Committee under the DSPE Act before passing such Orders. The IAs had been dismissed because they had followed the same prayers as those in the Petitions, so there had been no need to examine them separately. The Supreme Court had ordered the Committee under Section 4A(1) of DSPE to examine the matter within a week from the date of this order. However, despite the restoration of Mr. Verma as the Director, CBI, his role had been confined to exercising routine powers and he had been barred from taking any fresh initiative regarding any major policy or institutional implications.

CONCLUSION

It had rightfully been remarked by the CJI Ranjan Gogoi at the start of this judgement that “the Rule of Law is the bedrock of democracy”² and to aptly abide by that principle, the interpretation of the said law must also be proper and fair. Every now and then there come cases marred with vices like ultra vires usage of power or excessive delegation by the very authority created to curb these vices, and in the face of the injustice that they cause, it is the duty of the judiciary to check and provide recourse. The judgement of Alok Kumar v Union of India had aptly addressed such concerns in light of the appropriate interpretation of the legislative intent, and that is the mark of a brilliant judiciary system; it had also provided courses of action to further eliminate any inconsistencies.

WRITTEN BY MANSHI AGARWAL, LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.