If an investigation is ordered on "all and sundry" purported diary entries of Sahara and Birla Groups made by "unscrupulous persons", it would have a "very dangerous" effect on constitutional functionaries, government told the Supreme Court today.
During the day-long high voltage hearing, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy that no constitutional functionaries would be able to function if the apex court ordered registration of FIR and a probe into the bribery allegations against Prime Minister and other politicians on the basis of documents seized during the raids at the premises of the two major business houses.
"In case a probe is ordered by this court, it will be very dangerous and no constitutional functionaries can function if investigation will be ordered at all and sundry like this," he told the bench which dismissed the plea of NGO, Common Cause, seeking a court-monitored SIT probe in the matter.
The Attorney General countered the submission of senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO, that this was a fit case having prima facie enough evidence to order registration of case and probe.
Rohatgi told the bench that the materials of Sahara Group, on the basis of which the petitioner has sought investigation, has been found to be not genuine by the Income Tax Settlement Commission.
"The documents which have been filed are not in the form of the account books of these companies. They are not account books maintained in the regular course of business and their correctness have been found to be unreliable by the commission at least in the Sahara Group matter," he said.
He said the case of Birla Group was also "on a similar footing" and the materials were not reliable. "It is open to any unscrupulous person to make entries in the name of anybody on a piece of paper without there being any corroborative material. No case is made out to order investigation, that too against large number of politicial leaders whose names are mentioned in these entries," he said.
However, Prashant Bhushan argued that there cannot be any other case where there was so much of evidence to order probe. "If this court held that even this is not a fit case to order investigation when such documents have been recovered and persons involved (in allegedly making the entries) have admitted it before the IT department, then I wonder what will be a fit case," he said.