3/13/2015

NoimmunityfromprosecutionTheHindu

Today'sPaperOPINION
Noimmunityfromprosecution
R.K.Raghavan

SpecialCBIJudgeBharatParasharwhoislookingintothecoalscamisabraveman.Heisneitheroverawedbythe
statusofthosearraignedbyhimnorbythemightofanyinvestigatingagency,includingtheformidableCentralBureau
ofInvestigation(CBI),fromwhoseconclusionshehasnowdifferedsharply.Hisplaceinhistoryisassured,ashehas
daredtotakecognisanceoftheoffencesallegedtohavebeencommittedbytheformerPrimeMinister,Dr.Manmohan
Singh,inconnectionwiththeallocationofacoalblocktoaprivatecompany,Hindalco.
TheotherswhomsimilarcognisancehasbeentakenagainstareformerCoalSecretary,P.C.Parakh,andKumar
MangalamBirla,ChairmanoftheAdityaBirlaGroup,andthedirectbeneficiaryoftheaward.Thethreehavebeen
accusedofoffencesundertheIndianPenalCode(IPC)andthePreventionofCorruptionAct(PCA)1988,makingout
bothcriminalconspiracyandbreachoftrust.
RelevanceoftheCrPC
ThejudgesdecisioncomesafterhisrejectionoftwosuccessiveclosurereportsbytheCBIinthecase.Itreestablishes
thecourtsprerogativetoacceptorturndownaninvestigatorsfindings.Ascitizens,weshouldappreciatethatthisis
thebestsafeguardwehaveagainstatendentiousandarbitrarycriminalinvestigationthatfavoursarulingparty.The
latterhasavicelikegripoverinvestigatingagencies,bothintheStatesandundertheCentre(theCBIandtheNational
InvestigationAgencyorNIA).Itisanentirelydifferentmatterthatthejudgetakingthepositionisalsosusceptibleto
bothpoliticalpressureandapersonallackofintegrity.Fortunately,suchjudgesareanexceptionratherthantherule,
especiallyinsensitivecases,suchasthecoalscam,wheremonitoringbytheSupremeCourtandthemediashawklike
attentionleavelittleroomforjudicialmisconduct.
RelevanthereisSection319oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure(CrPC)whichgivesthecourtenormousdiscretionto
proceedagainstapersonwhomaynothavebeencitedbytheinvestigatingagencyasbeinganaccused.Ifafter
examinationofthedocumentsproducedbeforehim,thejudgefeelsthatthereisanadditionalpersonagainstwhom
thereissufficientadversematerialrelevanttothecasebuthasnotbeencitedasanaccusedbytheprosecution,the
judgecoulddirecthimtofacetrial.Ofcoursethelatterwillbegivenenoughopportunitytodefendhimself,likethe
otherschargesheetedbytheinvestigatingagencyandwhoarealreadyfacingtrial.ThisishowDr.Singhhasbeen
caughtintheCoalgateheat,muchtohisconsternationandthatofhissupporters.
Majestyofthelaw
ThejudgesorderalsoreaffirmsthepositionthataPrimeMinisterinofficeoroutsidehasnoimmunityfrom
criminalprosecution.ThereareafewamongDr.SinghsacolyteswhoareoutragedthataformerPrimeMinistercould
besotakentocourttofacetrial.Theirstandispreposterousandlaughable.Themajestyofthelawcanneverget
diminished,exceptunderArmyrule.Nobodyisabovethelaw,andDr.Singhwillhavetogothroughtheordeal,atthe
endofwhichhemaystillemergeunscathed.
SomereactionstothejudgesdirectiontoDr.SinghtoappearbeforehimonApril8aremeantdeliberatelytoobfuscate
theissues.ItisnotthejudgescasethatDr.Singhwasdishonestandhadreceivedaconsiderationforawardingthe
minetoHindalco.NoneinhissenseswouldallegethattheformerPrimeMinisterhadreceivedanyillegalgratification.
AsagainstthisaretheseveralcircumstancespertainingtotheawardthatindicatedthatDr.Singhandhisofficehad
shownundueinterestingrantingthecoalblock(TalabiraIIintheStateofOdisha)toHindalco.Theseincludeda
personalmeeting,onJune17,2005,betweenDr.SinghandMr.Birla(asalsoalettertotheformerfromMr.Birla),
subsequenttowhichtherewasanallegedsomersaultfromtheearlierpositionthatnominewillbeawardedtoaprivate
company,andthatitwouldbeonlytoapublicsectororganisation,liketheNeyveliLigniteCorporation(NLC),that
wouldbepreferred.ThisdoesnotclinchtheguiltofDr.Singh,butcertainlycompoundsthesuspicionagainsthim.It
didnotmatterwhetherhewasactingonhisownoratthebehestofsomeoneelse.Thefactofthematterwasthathe
wasCoalMinisteronthatday,apartfrombeingthePrimeMinister.
WheretheCBIerred
ThecardinalmistaketheCBIcommittedinthecoalscamwasitsfailuretoquestionDr.Singh.Itwasridiculousthatall
CBIreferenceswerebynametobothMr.ParakhandMr.Birla.WhenitcametoDr.Singh,hewasbeingalludedtoasa
CompetentAuthority.ThosewhowereorareingovernmentknewthatthiswastheCoalMinisterandnooneelse.
Butstill,therewasanactofdeceptionwherebythepersonwithwhomthebuckstoppedwasbeingreferredtoonlyasa
CompetentAuthority!WedonotknowwhetherDr.Singhwasnotexaminedbecauseofextraneouspressureor
becausethethenDirectoroftheCBItookthestandthatthiswasnotrequired.Ineithercase,thiswasunconscionable.
Itisjustpossiblethatifhehadbeenexaminedandadetailedstatementrecordedattheearliestpointoftime,Dr.Singh
wouldhaveexplainedhimselffullyandthecourtcouldhavebeenconvincedofhisnonculpability.Thefactthatthe
CBIexaminedhimonlyafteracourtdirectionisindicativeofakidglovetreatment,somethingthatpossiblyannoyed
thejudgeandcompelledhimtotaketherigidstandthathehasnowtaken.
Inmyview,thekeyquestionsare:didthedecisiontoawardablocktoHindalcoresultinalosstothepublic
exchequer?Or,wasitjustacaseofdownrightfavouritism?Also,wasHindalcoentitledtotheallotmentinpreference
http://www.thehindu.com/todayspaper/tpopinion/noimmunityfromprosecution/article6988102.ece

1/2

3/13/2015

NoimmunityfromprosecutionTheHindu

totheothersstakingaclaimfortheparticularblock,anddidthisgivethemunduepecuniaryadvantage?Inthefinal
analysis,thejudgewillhavetobeconvincedthattherewasnolossifhehadtodropfurtherproceedingseitherbefore
heframeschargesoraftertrial.
Provingonesinnocence
AsSection13(1)(d)(iii)ofthePCAstandsnow,itisenoughfortheprosecutiontoprovethatapublicservant,while
holdingofficeactedwithoutpublicinterest,andobtainedforanypersonanyvaluablethingorpecuniaryadvantage.
Ineffect,thiswouldmeancausingwrongfullosstogovernmentandwrongfulgaintoanotherperson.Thereisnoneed
toestablishmensrea(criminalintention)oraquidproquobetweenthetwo.Ineffecttheburdenofprovinghis
innocencefallsontheaccused,somethinggravelycontrarytotheEnglishjurisprudence,whichwehaveborrowedfrom
thealienruler.AnamendmenttothePCAtoeliminatethishighlyquestionableprovisionoflaw,which,onthefaceof
it,iscontrarytoprinciplesofnaturaljustice,isstillhangingfire.Thereforeitis13(1)(d)(iii)thatcouldgogrievously
againstDr.Singh.Allotherfactorsareirrelevant,includinghisunassailablepersonalintegrityandthefactthatseveral
ChiefMinisters(includingnonCongress)reportedlyendorsedthethengovernmentspolicyofawardingpublic
resourceswithoutresortingtotheauctionroute.
TheformerPrimeMinisterhasseveraloptions.IwillnotbesurprisedifhedoesnotshowupattheSpecialCourton
April8butgoesonappealtotheDelhiHighCourttochallengethecognisancetakenagainsthimbythespecialjudge.
HemayalsoseekanexemptionfromappearancebeforetheSpecialCourt.Ifthishappenswearelikelytowitnessa
prolongedcourtbattle.InhisargumentsbeforetheHighCourt,hemayalsopointoutthatnosanctionforprosecution
hadbeenobtainedbytheCBIashewasapublicservantattherelevanttime.Suchsanctionwillcertainlybeneededfor
theIPCoffences(andnotforthePCAones)allegedagainsthim.ItisbelievedthattheCBIwillhavetoaddressthe
PresidentofIndiaforobtainingsanctiontoprosecuteDr.SinghundertheIPC.Whatwearetalkingofhereisthe
Presidentsownapplicationofmind,andnotthatoftheExecutive.
Theaddedcomplicationhereiswhether,asasittingmemberoftheRajyaSabha,hegetstheadvantageoftheCBI
needinganadditionalsanctionfromtheChairmanofthatHouse,althoughtheoffenceattributedtohimwas
committedbyhimwhenhewasaPrimeMinister.Insuchaneventuality,thereareseveralinterestingpossibilities.
(Dr.R.K.RaghavanisaformerCBIDirector.)
ThecardinalmistaketheCBIcommittedinthecoalscamwasitsfailuretoquestionManmohan
Singh...ThefactthattheCBIexaminedhimonlyafteracourtdirectionisindicativeof
akidglovetreatment....
ThespecialjudgesorderintheHindalcocoalblockallocationcasereaffirmsthepositionthat
aPrimeMinisterhasnoimmunityfromcriminalprosecution.OutragebysomethataformerPrime
Ministercouldbesotakentocourtisastandthatispreposterous.Nobodyisabovethelawand
Dr.Singhwillhavetogothroughtheordeal,attheendofwhichhemaystillemergeunscathed

http://www.thehindu.com/todayspaper/tpopinion/noimmunityfromprosecution/article6988102.ece

2/2