<p>The Supreme Court on Monday admitted for consideration a PIL seeking a court-monitored SIT or CBI probe into the high level of political-bureaucratic-corporate nexus to change public policy and leak confidential papers as disclosed through purported internal communications of Essar group.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A three-judge bench presided over by Justice T S Thakur issued notice to the Centre, CBI and Essar group and sought their response within six weeks on a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation.<br /><br />The petitioner claimed that internal emails of Essar group of companies during 2009 and 2013 showed favours being granted to BJP leader Nitin Gadkari, now an Union minister, former ministers Sriprakash Jaiswal, Beni Prasad Verma and Congress leader Digvijay Singh and journalists through high-end gifts, luxury travels or jobs to their recommended candidates. A few journalists had to put in papers last month after information disclosed they used private taxi on behalf of the company for personal use.<br /><br />The court, though initially wanted to know the name of whistleblower in sealed over, refrained from issuing such direction after advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the person who passed on the information relating to dealings was threatened. <br /><br />“Some police officers were sent to his residence, without any FIR, to remind of his vulnerability in view of his wife, kids and old mother,” Bhushan claimed. He said that they stopped only after he warned them of holding a press conference and reveal everything.<br />The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi, wondered, “Is there any co-relations between gifts and discharge of their public functions?” <br /><br />Bhushan responded that receipt of favour was enough to invoke charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He said the company had kept 200 posts to be filled on recommendation of the political executives. Some of these appointments were made on the recommendation of these people.<br /><br />The court, however, asked, “Can those emails be authenticated as those may have been deleted?” To this, Bhushan said that this was possible through forensic examination. The court then pointed out that the petitioner had named many public functionaries in the PIL but not made them party in the case. On this, Bhushan, while drawing parallel with Niira Radia tapes, said he was just seeking investigation into the dealings.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Monday admitted for consideration a PIL seeking a court-monitored SIT or CBI probe into the high level of political-bureaucratic-corporate nexus to change public policy and leak confidential papers as disclosed through purported internal communications of Essar group.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A three-judge bench presided over by Justice T S Thakur issued notice to the Centre, CBI and Essar group and sought their response within six weeks on a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation.<br /><br />The petitioner claimed that internal emails of Essar group of companies during 2009 and 2013 showed favours being granted to BJP leader Nitin Gadkari, now an Union minister, former ministers Sriprakash Jaiswal, Beni Prasad Verma and Congress leader Digvijay Singh and journalists through high-end gifts, luxury travels or jobs to their recommended candidates. A few journalists had to put in papers last month after information disclosed they used private taxi on behalf of the company for personal use.<br /><br />The court, though initially wanted to know the name of whistleblower in sealed over, refrained from issuing such direction after advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the person who passed on the information relating to dealings was threatened. <br /><br />“Some police officers were sent to his residence, without any FIR, to remind of his vulnerability in view of his wife, kids and old mother,” Bhushan claimed. He said that they stopped only after he warned them of holding a press conference and reveal everything.<br />The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi, wondered, “Is there any co-relations between gifts and discharge of their public functions?” <br /><br />Bhushan responded that receipt of favour was enough to invoke charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He said the company had kept 200 posts to be filled on recommendation of the political executives. Some of these appointments were made on the recommendation of these people.<br /><br />The court, however, asked, “Can those emails be authenticated as those may have been deleted?” To this, Bhushan said that this was possible through forensic examination. The court then pointed out that the petitioner had named many public functionaries in the PIL but not made them party in the case. On this, Bhushan, while drawing parallel with Niira Radia tapes, said he was just seeking investigation into the dealings.</p>
