<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the necessity for the CBI to approach the government for seeking permission to investigate senior officials during the ongoing probe into the coal block allocations scam.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A three-judge bench presided over by Justice R M Lodha asked the Attorney General to explain the requirement in case of court-monitored or court-directed investigation.<br /><br />“This query is put to Attorney General in view of a categorical stand taken by the CBI before the Delhi High Court in a matter in which CBI counsel submitted that as the investigation was directed by the court, grant of sanction for prosecution is not necessary under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act,” the bench said.<br /><br />The bench also wanted to know from the Attorney General “why clarification should not be made that sanction for investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary from the government when the government's stand is that the power of supervision for investigation has already been shifted from government to CVC pursuant to direction issued by this court in Vineet Narain case.”<br /><br />During the hearing, the court frowned upon the government’s move to retain the power of appointment of the Director of Prosecution in case of the CBI by observing that in the proposed amendment in the DSPE, there was no effort to ensure that the appointee to the post was “independent” also.<br /><br />The court, however, shot down an idea proposed by PIL petitioner advocate M L Sharma to make the appointment of CBI director by unanimity. The Centre had proposed a committee of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha for selecting the CBI director. <br /><br />The hearing in the case saw Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, appearing on behalf of the CBI, withdrawing from the case. He is the third senior counsel to withdraw after senior advocate U U Lalit and then Additional Solicitor General H P Raval.<br /><br />Luthra decided to withdraw after the Attorney General submitted that no law officer should be involved with the agency in this case and the CBI should choose an independent lawyer.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the necessity for the CBI to approach the government for seeking permission to investigate senior officials during the ongoing probe into the coal block allocations scam.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A three-judge bench presided over by Justice R M Lodha asked the Attorney General to explain the requirement in case of court-monitored or court-directed investigation.<br /><br />“This query is put to Attorney General in view of a categorical stand taken by the CBI before the Delhi High Court in a matter in which CBI counsel submitted that as the investigation was directed by the court, grant of sanction for prosecution is not necessary under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act,” the bench said.<br /><br />The bench also wanted to know from the Attorney General “why clarification should not be made that sanction for investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary from the government when the government's stand is that the power of supervision for investigation has already been shifted from government to CVC pursuant to direction issued by this court in Vineet Narain case.”<br /><br />During the hearing, the court frowned upon the government’s move to retain the power of appointment of the Director of Prosecution in case of the CBI by observing that in the proposed amendment in the DSPE, there was no effort to ensure that the appointee to the post was “independent” also.<br /><br />The court, however, shot down an idea proposed by PIL petitioner advocate M L Sharma to make the appointment of CBI director by unanimity. The Centre had proposed a committee of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha for selecting the CBI director. <br /><br />The hearing in the case saw Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, appearing on behalf of the CBI, withdrawing from the case. He is the third senior counsel to withdraw after senior advocate U U Lalit and then Additional Solicitor General H P Raval.<br /><br />Luthra decided to withdraw after the Attorney General submitted that no law officer should be involved with the agency in this case and the CBI should choose an independent lawyer.</p>
