नई दिल्ली।सुप्रीम कोर्ट के वरिष्ठ वकील प्रशांत भूषण ने अरबोंं रुपयों के 2जी घोटाले की जांच में सीबीआई निदेशक रंजीत सिन्हा की ओर से की जा रही दखलअंदाली को रोकने के आदेश देने के लिए अर्जी दाखिल की है।मंगलवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर इस अर्जी में कहा कि सीबीआई निदेशक रंजीत सिन्हा 2जी घोटाले में पूर्व केंद्रीय मंत्री दयानिधि मारन, मैसर्स मैक्सिम और रिलायंस व प्रभावशाली लोगों को बचाने का प्रयास कर रहे है।वह 2जी मामले की जांच को तबाह करने में लगे है।
अर्जी में कहा गया है कि 2जी मामले की जांच कर रहे सभी अफसरों जो सुप्रीम कोर्ट को रिपोर्ट कर रहे है, ने हर बार राय दी है कि इस मामले में चार्जशीट दायर की जानी चाहिए।इसके अलावा निदेशक अभियोजन ने भी अपनी राय में चार्जशीट दायर करने करने को कहा है।लेकिन निदेशक सीबीआई रंजीत सिन्हा ने इन सबकी राय का दरकिनार कर दिया और कहा कि इस घोटालें में मामला ही नहीं बनता।
अर्जी में कहा गया है किअगर निदेशक सीबीआई और निदेशक अभियोजन के बीच किसी मामले में मतभेद हो जाए तो अटार्नी जनरल की राय ली जाती है।यहां भी राय ली गईऔर चार्जशीट दायर करने की राय मिली।लेकिन सिन्हा सबकी राय को ओवररूल कर रहे है।जबकि ये रिश्वत का स्पष्ट केस है।अगर की संदेह हो तो मामला अदालत पर छोड़ देना चाहिए।
अर्जी में कहा गया है कि सिन्हा कुछ निजी घरानों को लाभ पहुंचाने के लिए पद का दुरुपयोग कर रहे है ये पीसी एक्ट के तहत अपराध है।सुप्रीम कोर्ट में कहा कि सिन्हा बिना अदालत के इजाजत के जांच कर रहे अफसरों का तबादला कर रहे है।इस मामले की जांच को सुप्रीम कोर्ट मानिटर कर रहा है और आदेश दे रखे है किअदालत की बिना इजाजत के किसी अफसर को न बदला जाए।जबकि सिन्हा ने अदालत को बताए बिना जांच कर रहे डीआईजी संतोष रस्तोगी का तबादला कर दिया।
प्रशांत भूषण ने अर्जी में कहा है कि सिन्हा को इस मामले की जांच मे दखल देने से रोका जाए। मामले कीसुनवाई 2 सितंबर को होनी है।
यहां पढ़े 2जी मामले में अदालत से सीबीआई निदेशक को दखल देने से रोकने के लिए दायर की गई अर्जी
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. __________ OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10660 OF 2010
In the matter of:
Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors …Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India & Ors …Respondents
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Hon’ble Companion Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The humble application of the petitioner above named most respectfully showeth:
1. The above civil appeal arises out of a special leave petition seeking court monitoring of the CBI & ED investigation into the 2G spectrum scam. This Hon’ble court vide order dated 16.12.2010 was pleased to grant leave in the said SLP and had given several directions to the CBI & ED. This Hon’ble Court is monitoring the CBI & ED investigations in the 2G cases keeping in view the nature and position of people who are the subject matter of investigation.
2. The petitioners are filing the instant application because of the extraordinary developments that have taken place in the case. This application seeks a direction to the CBI Director Mr. Ranjit Sinha not to interfere in the 2G spectrum allocation case investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI and to recuse from the case.
3. This Hon’ble Court is monitoring the CBI investigations in the 2G spectrum scam cases and has made it clear that no interference in the investigations would be tolerated. However, the CBI Director has made serious attempts to derail the investigation and prosecution being carried out by the CBI. Two such instances are being given here.
Attempting to save Mr. Maran and M/s Maxis
4. CBI had developed a water-tight case against former telecom minister Mr. Dayanidhi Maran for favouring M/s Aircel after it was bought over by M/s Maxis by granting it several licenses which were refused earlier. CBI had found a money trail in which a whopping Rs 650 crores were invested by M/s Maxis to buy shares at a hugely inflated price in a new company called Sun Direct Tv owned by Mr. Maran’s brother. All the investigation officers (who are reporting to this Hon’ble Court) had opined that a chargesheet must be filed and even the Director of Prosecution had said that chargesheet ought to be filed in the matter. But the CBI Director overruled them and stated no case is made out.
5. As per CBI Manual, where there is a difference of opinion between CBI Director and Director of Prosecution, the opinion of Attorney General is sought. Hence an opinion of the Attorney General was sought, who has also confirmed what everyone else was saying that a chargesheet ought to be filed against Mr. Maran. This was, thus, a clear attempt on the part of the CBI Director to save Mr. Maran and M/s Maxis by overruling his own investigation officers in an open and shut case of bribery. Even if there was any doubt in his mind, he ought to have left the matter to the trial court to decide. To prevent even the chargesheet from being filed in a case like this, amounts to an abuse of authority on his part, in order to benefit a few private parties, which is an offence under the PC Act.
Attempting to save M/s Reliance
6. CBI has filed a chargesheet in April 2011 against M/s Reliance and its 3 top executives for creating a company M/s Swan Telecom, through a maze of shell companies, out of about Rs 1000 crore of Reliance’s funds. Reliance was ineligible to apply since it was already a license holder. Therefore, it created Swan which then applied for license and was favoured by the then telecom minister Mr. Raja for allocation of telecom license and 2G spectrum. At the time of applying, the company has to state in the application form that it does not hold any existing telecom license, which M/s Swan falsely stated. This Swan was later sold to Mr. Shahid Balwa and Mr. Vinod Goenka, who have also been chargesheeted by the CBI for bribery after a money trail was found.
7. The Special Court, exclusively dealing with 2G scam cases, was pleased to take cognizance of the said chargesheet and was pleased to frame charges against all the accused. Accused Mr. Shahid Balwa has filed WP(Crl) 205 of 2013 before this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of the charges against him. On the instructions of the CBI Director, a draft counter affidavit was prepared by the CBI officers. The said draft affidavit (in para 24), shockingly, completely reverses the stand the CBI has taken in its chargesheet and before the trial court. CBI in that affidavit stated that since Swan was sold off by Reliance to Mr. Balwa after the date of application and before the license was granted, therefore, Swan was eligible on the date license was granted. This kind of false affidavit, which would mark a reversal of CBI’s stand, would have possibly saved Reliance, its officers, Mr. Balwa etc. from being convicted.
8. The above referred draft affidavit was forwarded for settling and approval, as per procedure, to Shri U U Lalit, the then Special Public Prosecutor for 2G Spectrum cases appointed by this Hon’ble Court. DIG Shri Santosh Rastogi wrote to Shri Lalit on 24.06.2014 stating: “Competent authority in CBI has approved draft separate parawise replies to each petition. Draft parawise replies to WP(C) No. 205/2013 and WP(C) No. 17/2014 filed by Shahid Balwa and Gautam Doshi respectively, duly approved by the Competent Authority in CBI, are attached herewith for your kind perusal, vetting and settling the same.” A copy of the said letter dated 24.06.2014 is annexed as Annexure A (Pg ___________).
9. After the receipt of this letter, Shri Lalit on 30.06.2014 sent a strongly worded 3 page letter questioning who had made the draft and under who’s authority it was sent to him. Shri Lalit stated this draft reply is tantamount to weakening the CBI’s case and this ought not to be done. This letter makes it clear that the draft was prepared on the instructions of the CBI Director. A copy of the news report published in the DNA on 04.08.2014 is annexed as Annexure B (Pg ___________).
10. More shockingly, it is learnt that on 22.07.2014, the CBI Director has entered a noting in response to Shri Lalit’s letter stating that since Shri Lalit is being appointed as a Judge of this Hon’ble Court, CBI would “rake up” the issue after he is so appointed. This is nothing but a blatant attempt on the part of the CBI Director to save Reliance and other influential accused in the 2G case. The petitioners’ counsel had raised the issue in the last date of hearing on 12.08.2014 when this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the CBI to produce the relevant files for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners’ counsel had written to the senior counsel for the CBI Shri K K Venugopal to produce, amongst others, certain files and documents, which include this noting of the Director CBI. A copy of the said letter dated 13.08.2014 is annexed as Annexure C (Pg ___________).
Transfer of the DIG Shri Rastogi
11. DIG Shri Santosh Rastogi, it is learnt, asked to be relived from the investigations as the CBI Director was repeatedly trying to destroy the case. After this, Shri Rastogi was transferred out of the 2G case investigations by the CBI Director. This was done despite the fact that this Hon’ble Court has directed the CBI and ED not to make any change in the composition of the 2G investigation team without any leave of this Hon’ble Court. In fact, after ED Director Shri Rajeshwar Singh was sought to be transferred, this Hon’ble Court passed an order ensuring that he is retained at the present position till the entire 2G investigation is complete. It is also learnt that the Director CBI has called for an explanation from Shri Rastogi as to why did he sought to be relieved from the 2G case investigation despite the fact that it was the Director who, by his repeated interference, made it difficult for the investigation officer to continue in these court-monitored investigations. After this Hon’ble Court, during the 12.08.2014 hearing, directed that Shri Rastogi not be transferred, the Director CBI justified his actions by stating it was an administrative decision. A copy of the news report dated 12.08.2014 is annexed as Annexure D (Pg ___________).
Conclusion
12. From the above it is clear that Shri Ranjit Sinha as the CBI Director has made every possible attempt to scuttle the CBI investigations in the 2G case by attempting to save Mr. Maran & M/s Maxis, and then more brazenly attempting to save M/s Reliance and other influential accused who are already facing trial. He has also attempted to transfer out the CBI’s lead 2G case investigation officer without the leave of this Hon’ble Court. This has been done, despite the fact that express orders have been passed by this Hon’ble Court in the instant case that no one ought to interfere in the 2G investigations being carried out by the CBI’s team of investigation officers. It is also useful to note that Shri Sinha has been admonished by this Hon’ble Court in the coal scam case for showing the CBI status report to the political executive before it was filed in this Hon’ble Court, and also for modifying the status report at the instance of the political executive. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that in public interest and in the interest of fair investigations in the case, that this Hon’ble Court should direct that the CBI Director would not interfere in 2G case investigations and prosecutions being carried out by the CBI and would recuse from the case.
PRAYER
In these facts and circumstances, the petitioners respectfully pray that your Lordships may be pleased to:
(i) Direct the CBI Director Mr. Ranjit Sinha to not to interfere in the 2G spectrum allocation case investigations & prosecutions being carried out by the CBI and to recuse from the case.
(ii) Pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
PETITIONERS THROUGH:
FILED ON: .08.2014 PRASHANT BHUSHAN
NEW DELHI COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
(17)
