New Delhi, February 8
The UPA government has candidly admitted in the Supreme Court that the nexus among criminals, politicians and bureaucrats has increased leading to a “disturbingly” high-level of corruption, yet it has opposed any move to strike down the “single directive” in the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) that protected top officials from direct investigation by the CBI.
Recording the submission of Solicitor-General of India G.E. Vahanvati regarding government’s “admission” of the criminals-politicians-bureaucrats collusion, a Bench of Mr Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Mr Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr Justice Tarun Chatterjee, expressed surprise that despite this the Centre had opposed the plea for striking down the “single directive”.
The Solicitor-General “though very fairly (is) admitting that the nexus between criminals and some elements of establishment, including politicians and various sections of bureaucracy, has increased and also there is a disturbing increase in the level of corruption and these problems need to be addressed,”...the government has taken a stand that “a legislation cannot be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness or unreasonableness,” the court in its order recorded.
The observations against the Union Government were made by the court in its order, referring the issue of “single directive” to a Constitution Bench to decide whether the “arbitrariness” of a law could be a ground to strike it down or arbitrariness should be manifested.
The provision of “single directive” initially made by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government through an executive order in 1996, was struck down by the three-judge Bench in 1997 in the infamous Jain-hawala case.
The “single directive” was retained in the CVC Act passed with almost a unanimous decision by Parliament during the NDA regime in 2003. This was challenged in the apex court through two PILs, contending that it was “wholly subversive of independent investigation of culpable bureaucrats and strikes at the core of rule of law” that every one was equal before it.
Senior advocate Anil Diwan, who argued the case as amicus curiae, had said in fact all politicians had “colluded” to reintroduce the “single directive” in the CVC Act, which was issued by an
“arbitrary” order of the government in 1996 “This has been done despite the fact that the apex court had struck it down,” he contended.The issue was referred to the Constitution Bench because there were two judgements — Jain-Hawala and Veeraswamy cases —with conflicting opinions on the question whether “arbitrariness” could be ground for striking down a law and the Solicitor-General had taken advantage of it and pointed out that it could not be a sound reason for quashing a provision of an Act as there should be a “manifest arbitrariness”.
The Solicitor-General had further said the test of “arbitrariness” could only be a ground for striking down an executive order not a legislation.
The provision of Section 6 of the CVC Act in which the “single directive” has been incorporated prohibits the CBI from initiating even a preliminary inquiry against the officer of the rank of Joint Secretary or above without the prior sanction of the government if the agency had received a complaint of any irregularity against such officer.
