)
It’s over quicker than it started.
In a bizarre turn of events, the CBI seems all set to wind down the high profile case against Kumaramangalam Birla according to a Times of India report, after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s hard defence on the allocation of coal blocks to Hindalco put the investigative agency in a spot.
Conspiracy theorists point to the fact that the case has had exactly the effect that was desired of it – a closure for all parties concerned. Many had called the CBI’s FIR against Birla and former Coal Secretary P C Parakh, who was also the whistleblower in the coal allocation scam ‘flimsy’. And ironically the investigative agency seems keen on proving them right by shuttering the case in which it had not so long ago claimed to have found "incriminating evidence" against Birla in the searches it conducted at 5 locations.
Conspiracy theorists point to the fact that the case has had exactly the effect that was desired of it – a closure for all parties concerned. Many had called the CBI’s FIR against Birla and former Coal Secretary P C Parakh, who was also the whistleblower in the coal allocation scam ‘flimsy’. And ironically the investigative agency seems keen on proving them right by shuttering the case in which it had not so long ago claimed to have found "incriminating evidence" against Birla in the searches it conducted at 5 locations.
The CBI’s basic point of contention was that the screening committee’s recommendations were overturned by Parakh. This, it deduced as abuse of official position to favour a certain party. But at no point could the CBI establish any quid pro quo, even conceding that a "competent authority" had made the final call in Hindalco's favour. It never got around to naming who the “competent authority” was, but the inference that most drew was, that it was referring to the PMO. And now, with the “competent authority” i.e. the Prime Minister vociferously defending the allocations made by him, claiming there was no wrongdoing, the high profile case seems to be fast unraveling.
There is no reason for this to be an open-and-shut case though, says Prashant Bhushan, an advocate and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party. According to Bhushan, under the PCA (Prevention of Corruption Act), an act of criminal misconduct is enough for the CBI to initiate an enquiry, and the allotment of the blocks to Birla was such an act.
“The screening committee gave three valid reasons while rejecting Birla’s application initially, including the fact that the block was reserved for the public sector. So Hindalco wasn’t eligible to apply, despite which the blocks were awarded to the company. This is an act of criminal misconduct, which amounts to largesse to a private entity,” says Bhushan.
But others disagree. To prove criminal liability, “there must be clear evidence of an individual's involvement in the illegality”, says Senior Counsel Arvind Datar.
Agrees Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. “There has to be some kind of quid pro quo established to assert criminality. This was a matter of policy. A mere wrong decision or non adherence to policy cannot be reason enough to assume criminality Mens Rea.”
Most experts agree that though the CBI was well within its rights to file an FIR to initiate an enquiry, in the absence of hardcore evidence or quid pro quo, it was simply an overreaction. “This was definitely an overreaction because of the pendency of the matter in the Supreme Court. Investigating agencies must have an independent mind of their own and not be bogged down by courts” adds Singh.
As the investigating agency bids a hasty retreat, there are more questions than answers.
Did, the CBI act under pressure from the courts?
Did it suddenly realize that without establishing quid pro quo, it wouldn’t be able to proceed?
More importantly, what happened to the ‘incriminating evidence’ it had found?
Finally, why did it not name the “competent authority”, hauling up instead the former Coal Secretary in its FIR?
The first 3 questions, CBI must answer. But the PMO’s rejoinder to this case could give a clue to the last question and also indications on how the case will proceed from here. In a press release the PMO stated that “The Prime Minister is satisfied that the final decision taken in this regard was entirely appropriate and is based on the merits of the case placed before him.”
Note the latter half of the sentence – “based on the merits of the case placed before him.”
Who put the “merits of the case” before him? Parakh presumably?
Where then, does the buck stop?
