67 legal grounds raised by Deshmukh, state govt to stop CBI probe
New Delhi: The two recent judgments in the same case—one by the Bombay High Court which ordered a CBI inquiry against former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh for his alleged role in collecting “hafta” from dance clubs and hookah bars by using policemen that reported to him, and the subsequent order of the Supreme Court which refused to stop the CBI inquiry despite Deshmukh and the Maharashtra state government fielding top lawyers—are likely to set a new precedent in bringing errant politicians to task and also repose the faith of the public in the judiciary.
The lawyers representing Deshmukh and those representing the government of Maharashtra had raised 67 legal “grounds” and 23 “questions of law” collectively in the Supreme Court while challenging the Bombay High Court decision of ordering a CBI preliminary inquiry into the corruption allegations levelled by former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh against the former Home Minister.
However, the division bench of Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta, found all these 67 “grounds” and 23 “questions of law” not strong enough to nullify the Bombay High Court order and stop the CBI inquiry.
The Supreme Court, in its order, stated: “We are of the view that the nature of allegations, the personas involved and the seriousness of the allegations do require an independent agency to enquire into the matter. It is a matter of public confidence given the factual scenario.”
The bench of Justice Kaul and Gupta added, “We are unable to accept the contentions of Dr A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel, that merely because the Home Minister has resigned after the impugned order would be a factor not to direct inquiry by an independent agency. The two personas held posts of Home Minister and Commissioner of Police for a long period and the latter would be a post of confidence of the former. Further, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, that even for directing a preliminary inquiry, the petitioner, Mr Anil Deshmukh, is mandatorily entitled to be heard in his individual capacity though the state government was represented and he was a minister at that time.” While Singhvi represented Maharashtra, Sibal appeared for Deshmukh.
The judgment by the Bombay High Court given by Justice G.S. Kulkarni, while deciding on a bunch of PILs seeking a CBI inquiry to verify the content of the letter written by former Mumbai commissioner Param Bir Singh against Deshmukh, had allowed the inquiry, stating that the local Malabar Hill police station to whom one of the PIL applicants, Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil, had approached with her complaint against Home Minister Deshmukh, had, “except for making an entry in the inward register, no action whatsoever, as the law would mandate, was initiated”.
The Maharashtra government’s own lawyer infact accepted in front of the court that “the complaint of Dr Patil was not processed” and “an impression was ought to be initially created that a preliminary inquiry was on”; however, no such inquiry was done ever initiated by the Maharashtra police.
The High Court had further stated while allowing the CBI inquiry: “The allegations made by Shri Param Bir Singh in the letter dated 20 March 2021 is of serious nature and against the highest functionary of the government of Maharashtra, when it comes to the functioning of the police department. Prima facie, the issues are such that the very faith of citizens in the functioning of the police department is at stake. Such allegations, therefore, cannot remain unattended and are required to be looked into in the manner know to law when, prima facie, they indicate commission of a cognizable offence. The court cannot be a mere spectator in these circumstances.”
Before going on to add, “To instill public confidence and safeguards the fundamental rights of the citizens, it is necessary that an inquiry and investigation is conducted by an independent agency.”
Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, the lawyers of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil’s—who was one of the PIL petitioners before the Bombay High Court against Deshmukh—stated that the argument raised by Deshmukh that he can choose the investigative agency to investigate him was not accepted by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle of law that an accused cannot choose as to which investigation agency will investigate his case. Justice Kaul said after all it is a matter of public confidence. “There were two main points that were raised by us—accused doesn’t have the right to choose the investigation agency and CBI being the independent body is required to investigate since the matters pertain to allegations by top cop against the home minister of the state and both being in controlling positions of the state police. The Honorable Supreme Court accepted both of these arguments,” advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari and Abhikalp Pratap Singh, who represented Patil, said.