Alok Verma v Union of India: CBI Director’s Divestment

Alok Verma v Union of India: CBI Director’s Divestment

Case Name	Alok Verma v Union of India: CBI Director’s Divestment
Equivalent Citations	Writ Petition (C) No. 1309 with 1315 of 2018
Date of Judgement	January 08, 2019
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case No.	WP (C) 1309/2018
Case Type	Writ Petition
Petitioner	Alok Verma
Respondent	Union of India
Bench	Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi (C.J.I.), Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph
Referred	Central Vigilance Comission Act, 2003- Section: 8(1)(a), 8(1)(b)Prevention Corruption Act, 1988- Section: 48, 49Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946- Section: 4- A(1) and 4-B(2)

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Cabinet Secretary filed a complaint on 31/08/2018 to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) alleging that the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Alok Verma was involved in corruption.

• The order has been signed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner along with other two Vigilance Commissioners and has been passed under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act (CVC Act), 2003.

• It is read along with Section 4(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act), 1946 as an interim action till the completion of the inquiry for the allegations, mentioned in the complaint aforesaid, as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Three orders were passed following the inquiry:
   1. On October 23, 2018, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) issued an order divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma, the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), of the authority granted to him in that capacity.
   2. In response to the above-mentioned order, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training of the Government of India issued an order divesting him of the authority, responsibilities, and other rights granted to him as the Director of the CBI.
   3. With immediate effect, Shri M. Nageshwar Rao was appointed an IPS officer and Joint Director of the CBI by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training of the Government of India. He was tasked with carrying out the responsibilities of the Director of the CBI.

5. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the three orders passed.

ISSUES RAISED

1. 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?

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

The Petitioner Contended that:

• The Central Vigilance Commission Act and its interpretation should be construed in a way that “preserves, maintains and furthers the integrity, independence and majesty” of the CBI and its director, who is the centre of authority. It has been argued that in order for the CBI to function as effectively and without interruption, the Director must be given an insulated tenure of at least two years. According to the Learned Counsels, this is how the CVC Act and the DSPE Act should be construed.

• It had also been argued that the phrase “the divestment Order cannot happen without the previous consent of the Committee” in Section 4(b)(2) of the DSPE Act, which refers to the transfer of the Director, should be interpreted broadly to include any attempt to strip the director of the CBI of his or her authority, etc., and that the orders would be invalid because the consent of the relevant committee was not obtained.

• Finally, it was claimed that this action was invalid because there was no grounds for the early termination of the Director of the CBI’s tenure.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The Respondent Contended that:

• Citing the cases of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana, the Committee’s role under Section 4-A(1) of the DSPE Act is limited to making recommendations on the basis of which the Central Government is to make the appointment. The requirement of prior consent only applies to transfers, and nothing else, it was added.

• The current situation is not a transfer case, but a case of power divestiture, and as the central government has the authority to bestow authority, it also ought to have the authority to divest. Furthermore, it had been argued that, in accordance with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act of 1897, the Central Government possessed the power to divest the Director of the CBI. It had been noted that if the government had the power to hire a servant, it also had that power to fire him.

• It has also been contended that just because a member of the Indian Police Service is appointed as the Director of the CBI, he must continue in that post and that he is not exempt from disciplinary action by the appropriate authorities because of his position.

RATIO DECIDENDI

• The court ruled that the government lacked the authority to issue the three directives since doing so would undermine the legislative objective and have an adverse effect on CBI.
• The legislation would have undoubtedly contained enabling provisions and, as a result, would have been differently worded and drafted if the intent had been to grant any State authority the ability to impose temporary restrictions on the Director of the CBI.

• The DSPE Act of 1946 and the CVC Act of 2003 both stipulate that the committee must first give its approval before the government and CVC can pass the contested directives.
• The court declared the IAs to be sequelae, and they were dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

• The three orders from the CVC and the Central Government were reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court.
• Given the committee one week from the date of the present order to consider the issue in accordance with Section 4(a)(1) of the DSPE Act.
• It reinstated Alok Kumar Verma as the director of the CBI till the committee’s conclusion was available; limited his authority as the head of the CBI to carrying out his regular duties; and forbade him from launching any new initiatives during the interim.

CONCLUSION

The CJI Ranjan Gogoi correctly said at the outset of this decision that “the Rule of Law is the bedrock of democracy” and that, to adequately uphold that value, the interpretation of the relevant law must also be proper and fair. For some organizations, like CBI, to operate effectively and as intended by the law, they need to be autonomous and free from outside interference. The Alok Kumar v. Union of India decision effectively addressed these issues in light of the correct interpretation of the legislative meaning, and that is the sign of a good decision. The case serves as a pillar to ensure that these laws are interpreted in a way that maintains the spirit in which they were meant to be used. It also ensured that the committee remained within its purview and was given the proper authority with regard to the admission and dismissal of CBI directors.

written by Shikha Rani Pradhan intern under legal vihdiya