 "Lawyers divided over CBI FIRs against Birla, Parakh")
The CBI says it has evidence to prove that Parakh abused his official position by overturning screening committee decisions to favour Birla, but Parakh, in an interview to a news channel claims, Birla had met the PM with regards to the allocation of the said coal blocks, and the PM had found merit in Birla’s statements.
The controversy has divided the lawyer community on the question of whether the CBI has overreacted by filing an FIR without explicit evidence of criminality, and also the issue of whether the PM, as the highest decision marker should be implicated in the case.
We spoke to some eminent legal experts, and this is what they had to say.
Vikas Singh – Senior Counsel
On CBI action:
“Kumaramangalam Birla is the main promoter, so if there is crime involved, then he cannot be absolved. Having said that, filing an FIR was an over-reaction, unless you have evidence of criminality in the form of payment of bribes etc.”
On Parakh’s suggestion that PM should be counted as conspirator:
“Mr Parakh is absolutely right. If an FIR has to be registered, then at both ends the top level decision makers should be implicated. You can’t be selective and file a case against the top guy from the corporate side and an intermediate level secretary at the government’s end.”
Majid Memon – Criminal Lawyer & Secretary – NCP
On CBI action:
“Lodging of a fresh FIR does not change the situation much except for the fact that now one more prominent businessman is named here along with a coal secretary and former Minister of State for Coal. Mere registration of an FIR should not cause panic, it is just another milestone in the pursuit of truth in a criminal matter that’s extremely scattered.”
On Parakh’s suggestion that PM should be counted as conspirator:
“Mr Parakh’s outburst seems coloured with a certain agenda of the opposition parties. Legally speaking, the CBI’s investigation officers are expected to dispatch their duties without prejudice and sans favour or frown to anybody. Let the investigation proceed in the right direction and let us hope the CBI gets to the bottom of this.”
Arvind P Datar – Senior Counsel
On CBI action:
“In the case of criminal liability, there must be clear evidence of an individual's involvement in the illegality. In many enactments, it is specifically provided that if an offence has been committed by a company, every director and officer in-charge is also deemed to be guilty. At present, we do not know under what statutory provision Mr. Birla's name has been included in the FIR. In the absence of such a specific statutory provision, it would not be proper to simply include the Chairman and all the Directors in the FIR. There must be a clear indication that the illegal act was done with the knowledge and approval of the Chairman/Directors”
More From This Section
On Parakh’s suggestion that PM should be counted as conspirator:
“There is a difference between moral responsibility and criminal liability. Generally, if serious illegality has taken place in a ministry, the Minister is, at least, morally responsible. But there is no criminal liability unless there is clear evidence that the illegal act was done with the knowledge of the concerned Minister. In the present case the Prime Minister was in-charge of the coal ministry. Unless there is strong evidence of his personal knowledge, he is not liable at all.”
H P Ranina – Supreme Court Advocate
On CBI action:
“Mr. Birla can claim he is innocent, Deepak Parekh can say he is clean, but the fact is, this is a Supreme Court monitored enquiry and the CBI has been asked to take a fair and objective view, so it is entitled to initiate an enquiry. It is too early to jump to any conclusion at this stage on the right and wrong of CBI’s actions, because the investigation is still underway. But nothing gets done without the knowledge or approval of the top management in such matters, no low level executive is going to stick his neck out and take an independent decision. There is no merit in the argument that Birla was a non-executive chairman, not looking into day to day matters.”
On Parakh’s suggestion that PM should be counted as conspirator:
“I agree with Mr. Parakh that the same logic should apply to the Prime Minister. If they do find that the PM is responsible, he does not enjoy any immunity. But to implicate the Prime Minister, you have to take the consent of the President.”