)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a plea that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh be directed to file an affidavit in the coal scam, which would have dragged him into the ongoing public interest litigation.
Singh had explained his role in the allocation of a coal block to Hindalco. Therefore, it was prayed he should be asked to explain the rest of the allocations also while he was in charge of the coal ministry. This would have made him a party in the case. The Bench headed by judge R M Lodha rejected the request made by petitioner Manohar Lal Sharma.
The apex court had asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the scam, which is about the government’s allocation of coal blocks without setting any guidelines, thus benefitting some corporate houses.
The CBI on Tuesday handed over the latest status report containing 181 pages of its findings, in a sealed envelope, to the court.
After examining the status report, the judges said there were certain parts that required explanations. A proposal to name a senior counsel as “friend of the court” to assist the judges was opposed by Sharma saying the 200 industrial houses were involved in the scandal and 99 per cent of the top lawyers were already on their payrolls. Then, the CBI counsel and two in-house prosecutors were asked to assist the judges in this respect. However, as the report is confidential, it will be done in camera, not in the open court.
The governments of six states that are rich in coal reserves were asked to explain their stand in the allocations, but two of them have not filed their affidavits. They have been asked to file their responses before January 15, when the case will be heard again. On that day, the court will also get the second status report from the CBI.
The judges clarified they were only “monitoring” the investigation, and not “supervising” it.
CBI counsel Amarendra Sharan assured the court that the investigations were in the “fourth gear”. The investigations on the missing files were on.
Sharan again opposed the government’s proposal purporting to give independence to CBI, on the ground that it was not enough for autonomy to the investigating agency. He said CBI was trying to be free from the influence of the government, whatever the colour of the ruling coalition at the Centre. He pointed out that in key cases, prosecutors are not appointed and red tape destroyed the fruits of investigation.
