)
Although the government may be going all out now to defend the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s legality after the Gauhati High Court called the agency “unconstitutional”, the writ petition raising this issue had not evoked any reaction from the Union government. The HC, in its judgment, also noted that the “Union of India did not file any response but CBI, as the Respondent No 2, filed an affidavit, wherein it claimed that it had been exercising functions and powers of police under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.”
Vijay Agarwal, senior advocate, said,“Probably they did not file a reply because they did not have one. The court cannot be a mute spectator. It does not matter in any case because it is not an ex parte order (one-sided) but a well- reasoned judgment.”
Agarwal had also sought to stay the 2G spectrum trial for his clients R K Chandolia, personal secretary to A Raja; and Shahid Balwa, promoter, DB Realty. However, in retrospect, it is still debatable if it would have made a difference to the high court’s view of CBI. But legal experts said the government could have put on record the material evidence and document related to the resolution on record after the writ petition was filed.
“The government did not make a full disclosure. So, the court has taken the issue head-on,” said Aman Lekhi, senior counsel. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday assured the CBI that prompt action would be taken to defend the agency’s legality. Former judge R S Sodhi said, “When the question is being raised about a law, then one need not reply. However, if there was no notification then it would have made no difference to the HC’s ruling, whether or not the government replies to the petition.”
The Supreme Court has given an interim stay on the HC order. The matter will now come up for hearing on December 6.
