Tweet
New Delhi
The Government’s inaction in setting up 71 additional CBI courts to expedite corruption cases against the high and mighty has become the latest flashpoint between the Centre and the Supreme Court.
Stating that the Centre had, so far, moved with a pace “worse than tortoise” on this anti-corruption front, the apex court set a deadline of July 1 for all States and the Centre to comply. It threatened to summon top Government officials in the respective States if its directive was not obeyed.
“Everybody — right from the top — wants corruption cases to be dealt with expeditiously. But at the end of the day, we find the progress made is worse than tortoise pace,” said a Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and KS Radhakrishnan. It was a case from Gujarat, where trial was pending for 11 years, that compelled the Court to examine the causes for delay.
“This case has opened our eyes,” the Bench added, noting from the affidavit filed by Centre that as on date, several vacancies in the CBI existed, with investigation departments dealing with banking, foreign trade and taxation being the worst affected. “What is the hitch?” the judges asked, wondering how the premier investigating agency was coping with cases relating to white-collar crimes, bank frauds and tax evasion, with not a single person in these departments.
“It’s an extremely serious matter,” the Bench exclaimed, adding, “It is most unfortunate that courts have to issue instruction to provide infrastructure to posts which are already sanctioned.”
Dealing with States one by one, the Bench found there was no representation from the Andhra Pradesh and Delhi Governments, following which the court directed the Law Secretary of the concerned States to remain present on the next date of hearing on August 1. In Andhra Pradesh, five additional courts were sanctioned while Delhi was allocated 15 to deal with pending cases.
Considering the seriousness of the issue, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had announced setting up 71 special CBI courts at a national meeting of CBI and State vigilance heads in August 2009.
The need for more courts can be gauged from the fact that till January 31 this year, the number of corruption cases pending investigation with the CBI was 9,910. Law Minister M Veerappa Moily had, in February, shot a reminder to all high courts to expedite steps to set up CBI courts after it received a gentle pat from the Prime Minister’s Office to follow up on the case.
It was in this backdrop that the Bench said, “As the Prime Minster has given it top priority, now people want results. Trial in corruption cases cannot be seen to extend beyond six months.”
In most States, the Bench noted that high courts had proposed the names of magistrates but the necessary infrastructure, facilities and additional staff had to be provided by the State Government. For this reason, the Bench directed all States to fulfill formalities before July 1. “Our anxiety is to put things in place,” the Bench said.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) PP Malhotra informed the court that out of 71, 10 have become functional, while for 54 others sanction orders have been issued. The Bench further directed the CBI to ensure that the vacant posts of inspectors, sub-inspectors and constables, who perform “grassroot work”, are filled expeditiously before the next date of hearing.
The Government’s inaction in setting up 71 additional CBI courts to expedite corruption cases against the high and mighty has become the latest flashpoint between the Centre and the Supreme Court.
Stating that the Centre had, so far, moved with a pace “worse than tortoise” on this anti-corruption front, the apex court set a deadline of July 1 for all States and the Centre to comply. It threatened to summon top Government officials in the respective States if its directive was not obeyed.
“Everybody — right from the top — wants corruption cases to be dealt with expeditiously. But at the end of the day, we find the progress made is worse than tortoise pace,” said a Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and KS Radhakrishnan. It was a case from Gujarat, where trial was pending for 11 years, that compelled the Court to examine the causes for delay.
“This case has opened our eyes,” the Bench added, noting from the affidavit filed by Centre that as on date, several vacancies in the CBI existed, with investigation departments dealing with banking, foreign trade and taxation being the worst affected. “What is the hitch?” the judges asked, wondering how the premier investigating agency was coping with cases relating to white-collar crimes, bank frauds and tax evasion, with not a single person in these departments.
“It’s an extremely serious matter,” the Bench exclaimed, adding, “It is most unfortunate that courts have to issue instruction to provide infrastructure to posts which are already sanctioned.”
Dealing with States one by one, the Bench found there was no representation from the Andhra Pradesh and Delhi Governments, following which the court directed the Law Secretary of the concerned States to remain present on the next date of hearing on August 1. In Andhra Pradesh, five additional courts were sanctioned while Delhi was allocated 15 to deal with pending cases.
Considering the seriousness of the issue, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had announced setting up 71 special CBI courts at a national meeting of CBI and State vigilance heads in August 2009.
The need for more courts can be gauged from the fact that till January 31 this year, the number of corruption cases pending investigation with the CBI was 9,910. Law Minister M Veerappa Moily had, in February, shot a reminder to all high courts to expedite steps to set up CBI courts after it received a gentle pat from the Prime Minister’s Office to follow up on the case.
It was in this backdrop that the Bench said, “As the Prime Minster has given it top priority, now people want results. Trial in corruption cases cannot be seen to extend beyond six months.”
In most States, the Bench noted that high courts had proposed the names of magistrates but the necessary infrastructure, facilities and additional staff had to be provided by the State Government. For this reason, the Bench directed all States to fulfill formalities before July 1. “Our anxiety is to put things in place,” the Bench said.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) PP Malhotra informed the court that out of 71, 10 have become functional, while for 54 others sanction orders have been issued. The Bench further directed the CBI to ensure that the vacant posts of inspectors, sub-inspectors and constables, who perform “grassroot work”, are filled expeditiously before the next date of hearing.
