<p>In the next one week, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) will examine CBI reports on 2G spectrum allocation and report to the Supreme Court with its views on the line of investigation.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The CVC report in “the sealed envelop” would be examined by the court along with the investigation reports submitted by the CBI, according to the apex court ruling here on Thursday. The court said the oversight of the CVC is necessary keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons. <br />The measure taken by the court is not extraordinary as CVC, the highest watchdog body in the government, is already empowered with certain monitoring over the CBI.<br />In fact, the panel which appoints the director of CBI is headed by Central Vigilance Commissioner with home secretary, secretary (co-ordn & PG), and cabinet secretariat as members.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has expressed satisfaction with the quality of CBI investigation but not before it said that “the CBI may not have taken up the matter to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness,” during the initial phase of its investigation.<br /><br />The FIR in the case, was registered in 2009 and the Apex court had not started monitoring the investigations until December 16, 2012. The court, however, goes on to state that after December 16, 2010, the CBI’s performance has been satisfactory.<br /><br />“Although, initially, the CBI may not have taken up the matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after Dec16, 2010, it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation,” the court said.<br /><br />Therefore, it said there’s no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise further investigation being conducted by the CBI and other agencies.<br /><br />The petitioner and lawyer Prashant Bhushan had sought setting up of a Special Investigation Team to supervise the CBI progress in the case.<br /><br />“However, keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the central vigilance commissioner and the senior vigilance commissioner appointed.. to render assistance to the court in effectively monitoring further investigation of the case,” the court said.<br /><br />The court said its direction “shall not in any manner be construed as a reflection on the integrity of the investigation so far done by the team of CBI.”</p>
<p>In the next one week, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) will examine CBI reports on 2G spectrum allocation and report to the Supreme Court with its views on the line of investigation.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The CVC report in “the sealed envelop” would be examined by the court along with the investigation reports submitted by the CBI, according to the apex court ruling here on Thursday. The court said the oversight of the CVC is necessary keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons. <br />The measure taken by the court is not extraordinary as CVC, the highest watchdog body in the government, is already empowered with certain monitoring over the CBI.<br />In fact, the panel which appoints the director of CBI is headed by Central Vigilance Commissioner with home secretary, secretary (co-ordn & PG), and cabinet secretariat as members.<br /><br />The Supreme Court has expressed satisfaction with the quality of CBI investigation but not before it said that “the CBI may not have taken up the matter to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness,” during the initial phase of its investigation.<br /><br />The FIR in the case, was registered in 2009 and the Apex court had not started monitoring the investigations until December 16, 2012. The court, however, goes on to state that after December 16, 2010, the CBI’s performance has been satisfactory.<br /><br />“Although, initially, the CBI may not have taken up the matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after Dec16, 2010, it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation,” the court said.<br /><br />Therefore, it said there’s no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise further investigation being conducted by the CBI and other agencies.<br /><br />The petitioner and lawyer Prashant Bhushan had sought setting up of a Special Investigation Team to supervise the CBI progress in the case.<br /><br />“However, keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the central vigilance commissioner and the senior vigilance commissioner appointed.. to render assistance to the court in effectively monitoring further investigation of the case,” the court said.<br /><br />The court said its direction “shall not in any manner be construed as a reflection on the integrity of the investigation so far done by the team of CBI.”</p>
