A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved the order on the conclusion of arguments by the Centre, Central Vigilance Commission and CBI on one hand, and petitioner Verma, the NGO and others on the other hand. Verma's petition had challenged the Centre's October 23 decision divesting him of his powers as the head of the premier investigating body in the country. Verma and Asthana have made allegations of corruption against each other.
During the hearing, the Central Vigilance Commission told the Supreme Court that extraordinary situations need extraordinary remedies,
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CVC, referred to apex court judgements and laws governing the CBI and said the Commission's superintendence (over the CBI) encompasses "surprise, extraordinary situations".
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said Attorney General K K Venugopal told the court that circumstances culminating in the situation had started in July. "Essence of the government action must be in the interest of the institution," the bench said.
The top court said it was not that the fight between the CBI Director and Special Director Rakesh Asthana emerged overnight, forcing the government to divest the director of powers without consulting the Selection Committee.
It further said the government has to be "fair" and asked what the difficulty was in consulting the Selection Committee before divesting the CBI director of his power. "The essence of every government action should be to adopt the best course," the top court said.
The chief justice also asked the CVC what prompted it to take such an action since it was not something that happened overnight.
Mehta told the court that the top officers of the CBI, "instead of investigating cases, were investigating cases against each other".
He said the jurisdiction is vested in the CVC to inquire or else it would have been guilty of dereliction of duty. If it did not act, it would be answerable to the President of India and the Supreme Court, he added.
He said the reference for inquiry against the CBI director had been sent by the government.
"CVC started probe but Verma did not give documents for months", Mehta said.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Asthana, told the apex court that he was a whistle-blower in the case, but was painted by the government with the same brush.
The government must take CVC inquiry against Verma to a logical end, he said.
Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for the CBI Director, said that the Centre's order took away all his powers.
He said that Section 16 of the General Clauses Act deals with as to who can remove officer like the CBI Director and doesn't deal with divesting of powers of the officer.
(With inoust from agencies)