The Supreme Court Thursday directed the CBI and other agencies probing the various facets of the 2G scam to make available their reports to the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) who would examine and send them to court with observations.
“In future, copies of the report(s) of the investigation conducted by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) and other agencies shall be made available to the Central Vigilance Commissioner in sealed envelopes,” the court said.
It said that “within next one week the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the senior vigilance commissioner shall examine the report(s) and send their observations and suggestions to this court in sealed envelopes which shall be considered along with the report(s) of the CBI and other investigating agencies”.
While directing the CVC to examine the reports by the CBI, the judgment noted that the Central Vigilance Commission had powers of superintendence over the CBI in the matter relating to the investigation of offences allegedly committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act but the same could not be exercised for interfering with the “manner and method of investigation or consideration of any case by the CBI in a particular manner”.
The apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly said this while declining the plea by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) seeking the appointment of a group of independent people to assist the court in monitoring the investigation in the 2G scam by different agencies.
“Initially, the CBI may not have taken up the matter relating to investigation of 2G case with requisite seriousness, after Dec 16, 2010 it has satisfactorily conducted the investigation,” the judges said
On Dec 16, 2010, the apex court gave directions to the CBI on its probe in 2G scam and had said that the court would monitor the investigation.
“There is no justification to appoint a group of persons to directly or indirectly scrutinise or supervise the further investigation being conducted by the CBI and other agencies,” the court said.
“Keeping in view the nature of the case and involvement of a large number of influential persons, we feel that it will be appropriate to require the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the senior vigilance commissioner appointed under Section 3(2) of the 2003 (CVC) act to render assistance to the court in effectively monitoring the further investigation of the case,” the court said.
This course will be perfectly in tune with the mandate of act, the judgment said.
