The Supreme Court has finally allowed&nbsp;former interim <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-holds-cbi-ex-interim-director-nageswara-rao-guilty-of-contempt-fines-1-lakh-196865">CBI director M Nageswara Rao</a>&nbsp;to leave the court after his day-long detention.

The court had on Tuesday morning found Rao guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him and&nbsp;CBI legal adviser S Bhasuram to a Rs 1 lakh fine and day-long detention in the court.&nbsp;

Rao and&nbsp;S Bhasuram, who also made to serve the day-long detention, had asked the court for permission to leave at 3.40 — but the court said no. They would have to stay till 4 pm, the rising of the court.&nbsp;

The top court responded furiously to the second attempt by Attorney General K K Venugopal, who represented Rao, seeking permission for Rao to leave.

"What's this? Do you want us to sentence him till the rising of the court tomorrow? Go and sit where you were," the CJI said.

The Supreme Court had found Rao them guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its order by transferring CBI Joint Director AK Sharma, who was probing the Bihar shelter home sexual assault cases, as additional director general of CRPF on January 17.

"In our considered view, it is a case where contempt has been committed by both the then acting CBI Director, M N Rao, and the director prosecution (of the agency)" a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said.

Holding them guilty of contempt of court, the bench, comprising justices LN Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said, "We could not have done anything else."

It said, "We have heard Rao and Bhasuram for the commission of contempt of court and we impose one lakh fine and sentence them till the rising of the court".

"Go to one corner of the court and sit down till the rising of this court," the CJI had said.

The Supreme Court has finally allowed former interim CBI director M Nageswara Rao to leave the court after his day-long detention. The court had on Tuesday morning found Rao guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him and CBI legal adviser S Bhasuram to a Rs 1 lakh fine and day-long detention in the court.

The Supreme Court has finally allowed former interim CBI director M Nageswara Rao to leave the court after his day-long detention. The court had on Tuesday morning found Rao guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him and CBI legal adviser S Bhasuram to a Rs 1 lakh fine and day-long detention in the court. Rao and S Bhasuram, who also made to serve the day-long detention, had asked the court for permission to leave at 3.40 — but the court said no. They would have to stay till 4 pm, the rising of the court. The top court responded furiously to the second attempt by Attorney General K K Venugopal, who represented Rao, seeking permission for Rao to leave. "What's this? Do you want us to sentence him till the rising of the court tomorrow? Go and sit where you were," the CJI said. The Supreme Court had found Rao them guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying its order by transferring CBI Joint Director AK Sharma, who was probing the Bihar shelter home sexual assault cases, as additional director general of CRPF on January 17. "In our considered view, it is a case where contempt has been committed by both the then acting CBI Director, M N Rao, and the director prosecution (of the agency)" a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said. Holding them guilty of contempt of court, the bench, comprising justices LN Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, said, "We could not have done anything else." It said, "We have heard Rao and Bhasuram for the commission of contempt of court and we impose one lakh fine and sentence them till the rising of the court". "Go to one corner of the court and sit down till the rising of this court," the CJI had said.

SC allows ex-CBI chief M Nageswara Rao to leave court after day-long detention

M Nageswara Rao Monday admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he committed "mistake" in transferring former joint director A K Sharma and apologised to the Supreme Court saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Rao, who filed an affidavit in response to a contempt notice issued to him on February 7, said he was praying for an unconditional and unqualified apology by the apex court. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"I sincerely realise my mistake and while tendering my unqualified and unconditional apology, I especially state I have not willfully violated the order of this court as I cannot even dream of violating or circumventing order of this court," he wrote in the apology. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The Supreme Court on February 7 came down heavily on the CBI for transferring Sharma, who was probing Bihar's shelter home cases, out of the agency in violation of the court's order and had directed Rao to personally appear before it on February 12. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took serious note of violation of two earlier orders of the apex court and issued contempt notice to Rao for transferring Sharma to the CRPF on January 17 without taking prior permission from the court.

M Nageswara Rao Monday admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he committed "mistake" in transferring former joint director A K Sharma and apologised to the Supreme Court saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders.

M Nageswara Rao Monday admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he committed "mistake" in transferring former joint director A K Sharma and apologised to the Supreme Court saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders. Rao, who filed an affidavit in response to a contempt notice issued to him on February 7, said he was praying for an unconditional and unqualified apology by the apex court. "I sincerely realise my mistake and while tendering my unqualified and unconditional apology, I especially state I have not willfully violated the order of this court as I cannot even dream of violating or circumventing order of this court," he wrote in the apology. The Supreme Court on February 7 came down heavily on the CBI for transferring Sharma, who was probing Bihar's shelter home cases, out of the agency in violation of the court's order and had directed Rao to personally appear before it on February 12. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took serious note of violation of two earlier orders of the apex court and issued contempt notice to Rao for transferring Sharma to the CRPF on January 17 without taking prior permission from the court.

Nageswara Rao offers unconditional apology to Supreme Court for transferring CBI officer against its order

After Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sikri, Justice Ramana has become the&nbsp;third judge to recuse himself from hearing a plea challenging the Centre's decision to appoint M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

This is the third recusal by a judge from a listed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the month of January 2019 alone.

Justice Ramana, while recusing himself from hearing the contentious PIL, said, ''I know him personally, therefore, it won't be appropriate to hear this PIL.'' &nbsp;

The PIL contended that the selection panel was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act.&nbsp;

Advocate Prashant Bhushan filed the PIL on January 15, 2019, and since then the PIL hasn’t been heard by the first four Supreme Court benches yet.

The PIL’s fate hangs in balance as it waits for a hearing by an appropriate bench.&nbsp;

It is likely to be heard by Justice Arun Mishra’s bench.&nbsp;

After Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sikri, Justice Ramana has become the third judge to recuse himself from hearing a plea challenging the Centre's decision to appoint M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director.

After Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sikri, Justice Ramana has become the third judge to recuse himself from hearing a plea challenging the Centre's decision to appoint M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director. This is the third recusal by a judge from a listed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the month of January 2019 alone. Justice Ramana, while recusing himself from hearing the contentious PIL, said, ''I know him personally, therefore, it won't be appropriate to hear this PIL.'' The PIL contended that the selection panel was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act. Advocate Prashant Bhushan filed the PIL on January 15, 2019, and since then the PIL hasn’t been heard by the first four Supreme Court benches yet. The PIL’s fate hangs in balance as it waits for a hearing by an appropriate bench. It is likely to be heard by Justice Arun Mishra’s bench.

Plea against Rao's appointment as interim CBI chief: Third judge recuses himself from hearing 

In a major reshuffle, interim CBI Director <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-recuses-himself-from-hearing-plea-challenging-nageswara-raos-appointment-as-cbi-director-191755">Nageswara Rao</a> has transferred around 20 officers, including the investigation officer of the 2G scam case, Vivek Priyadarshi.

Priyadarshi, posted in the Anti Corruption Branch in Delhi, has been transferred to Chandigarh.

The transfer order, however, states that all the officers, who have been specially directed to supervise, investigate or inquire into any case or matter by any constitutional court, shall continue to do.

A Saravanan, who was probing the anti-Sterlite protests firing case in Tamil Nadu in which 13 people were killed, has been shifted to the banking, securities and frauds branch in Mumbai, which is handling the cases of loan default against diamond traders Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, among others, the order said.

He will continue to investigate anti-Sterlite protests case, it said.

Prem Gautam, posted in Special Unit of the CBI which does internal snooping on officers as a vigilance measure, has been relieved from the position. He will continue to probe economic offences and will also handle the additional charge of the Deputy Director (Personnel), it said.

Gautam will be replaced by Ram Gopal, who has been transferred from the Special Crime branch in Chandigarh.

Rao's appointment as interim director has been challenged by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in the Supreme Court, which is likely to hear the matter on January 24.

Calling the appointment arbitrary, the plea said he was not appointed on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest party in the opposition, and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee Supreme Court judge. 
&nbsp;

In a major reshuffle, interim CBI Director Nageswara Rao has transferred around 20 officers, including the investigation officer of the 2G scam case, Vivek Priyadarshi.

In a major reshuffle, interim CBI Director Nageswara Rao has transferred around 20 officers, including the investigation officer of the 2G scam case, Vivek Priyadarshi. Priyadarshi, posted in the Anti Corruption Branch in Delhi, has been transferred to Chandigarh. The transfer order, however, states that all the officers, who have been specially directed to supervise, investigate or inquire into any case or matter by any constitutional court, shall continue to do. A Saravanan, who was probing the anti-Sterlite protests firing case in Tamil Nadu in which 13 people were killed, has been shifted to the banking, securities and frauds branch in Mumbai, which is handling the cases of loan default against diamond traders Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi, among others, the order said. He will continue to investigate anti-Sterlite protests case, it said. Prem Gautam, posted in Special Unit of the CBI which does internal snooping on officers as a vigilance measure, has been relieved from the position. He will continue to probe economic offences and will also handle the additional charge of the Deputy Director (Personnel), it said. Gautam will be replaced by Ram Gopal, who has been transferred from the Special Crime branch in Chandigarh. Rao's appointment as interim director has been challenged by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in the Supreme Court, which is likely to hear the matter on January 24. Calling the appointment arbitrary, the plea said he was not appointed on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest party in the opposition, and the Chief Justice of India or his nominee Supreme Court judge.

Interim CBI Director Nageswara Rao transfers 20 officers

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI.&nbsp;

Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director. The CBI director is chosen by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

The plea will now be heard by another bench.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Chief Justice of India recuses himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has sought transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of the CBI Director. <a href="https://t.co/VwL8kEOjNK">pic.twitter.com/VwL8kEOjNK</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1087223638066188289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The plea against Rao's appointment was filed by the NGO Common Cause after former director Alok Verma was transferred out of the agency. (Verma refused to take up his new posting, telling the government to instead consider him retired. Under the rules, the CBI director has an assured tenure of two years during which time he cannot be sacked, replaced or transferred.)&nbsp;

Verma had accused his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana of corruption.&nbsp;Asthana levelled the same charge against Verma. They were both finally shunted out.&nbsp;

ANI added that CJI Gogoi on Monday also sought transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection and appointment of the CBI director.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI. Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI. Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director. The CBI director is chosen by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. The plea will now be heard by another bench. Chief Justice of India recuses himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has sought transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of the CBI Director. pic.twitter.com/VwL8kEOjNK — ANI (@ANI) January 21, 2019 × The plea against Rao's appointment was filed by the NGO Common Cause after former director Alok Verma was transferred out of the agency. (Verma refused to take up his new posting, telling the government to instead consider him retired. Under the rules, the CBI director has an assured tenure of two years during which time he cannot be sacked, replaced or transferred.) Verma had accused his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana of corruption. Asthana levelled the same charge against Verma. They were both finally shunted out. ANI added that CJI Gogoi on Monday also sought transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection and appointment of the CBI director.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi recuses himself from hearing plea against Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim CBI director 

A plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking a direction to quash the January 10 order of the government appointing <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/nageswara-rao-again-takes-over-cbi-directors-duties-189578">IPS officer M Nageswara Rao</a> as an interim director of the CBI.

CBI's Additional Director Rao was given the charge of CBI interim chief on January till the appointment of a new director after a high-powered committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi removed Alok Kumar Verma as the chief of the probe agency on charges of corruption and dereliction of duty.

The petition, filed by NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, has sought the laying down of specific mechanisms to ensure transparency in the process of appointment of CBI director.

It alleged that Rao's appointment was not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee, comprising the prime minister, the leader of the single largest opposition party and the chief justice of India or a judge of the apex court nominated by him.

"In fact, it appears that the committee was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act," the plea, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said.

It stated that the order of October 23 last year appointing Rao as the interim CBI director was quashed by the top court on January 8 but the government has "acted in a completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner" to appoint him again in "complete contravention" of the DSPE Act.

The plea also sought a direction to the Centre to appoint a regular CBI director forthwith by following the procedure laid down in accordance with the provision of DSPE Act, as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Besides this, the petition has sought a direction to the government to ensure that "all records of deliberations and rational criteria related to short-listing and selection of the director, CBI, be properly recorded and made available to citizens in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act".

It said the government should ensure transparency in short-listing, election and appointment process of CBI director by publicly disclosing, including through the website, the procedure and rational criteria for short-listing candidates, if any short-listing is done.

The plea sought a direction to the Centre that the process of selecting CBI director, including composition, mandate and minutes of the meetings of the search committee, should be disclosed publicly along with names of short-listed candidates so that people can inform the panel of any significant adverse information they may have about any such candidate.

It said that the minutes of the meetings of the selection committee should be publicly disclosed and recording of facts to indicate how the selected candidates are best suited for the post, disclosure of this information according to the provisions of the RTI Act after the appointment has been made should be there.

"In so far as the appointment of the Director, CBI is concerned, the Government of India has failed to adopt proper procedures to ensure transparency in the short-listing, selection and appointment," the plea said.&nbsp;

It claimed that lack of transparency in appointment of CBI director prevents any public scrutiny of the process and allows the "government to exercise undue influence" in the appointment process especially at the stage of short-listing of candidates.

Detailing the sequence of events relating to the appointment of Rao as the interim CBI director, the plea alleged that the entire process was "mala fide" as the government wanted to "appoint its own choice as CBI Director in the interim".

It said that independence and insulation of the CBI from government influence was key to ensuring its proper functioning.

"The Government of India has attempted to stifle the independence of the institution of the CBI by appointing the Director of the CBI in an arbitrary and illegal manner," the plea claimed.

The apex court had on January 8 allowed Alok Kumar Verma to return as the CBI director, albeit with his wings clipped, by setting aside the Centre and the CVC's orders divesting him of his powers and sending him on leave.

However, the top court had said it was "still open" for the high-powered committee, which selects the CBI chief, to consider the matter within a week since the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is probing the charges of corruption against Verma.

It had set aside October 23, 2018, orders of the CVC and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) divesting Verma of his powers and asking Rao to look after the duties and functions of the agency's Director.

On January 10, the high-powered committee removed Verma as the CBI Director. The same day, an order was issued by the government giving Rao the charge of interim CBI director.

It alleged that Rao's appointment was not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee.

A plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking a direction to quash the January 10 order of the government appointing IPS officer M Nageswara Rao as an interim director of the CBI. CBI's Additional Director Rao was given the charge of CBI interim chief on January till the appointment of a new director after a high-powered committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi removed Alok Kumar Verma as the chief of the probe agency on charges of corruption and dereliction of duty. The petition, filed by NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, has sought the laying down of specific mechanisms to ensure transparency in the process of appointment of CBI director. It alleged that Rao's appointment was not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee, comprising the prime minister, the leader of the single largest opposition party and the chief justice of India or a judge of the apex court nominated by him. "In fact, it appears that the committee was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act," the plea, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, said. It stated that the order of October 23 last year appointing Rao as the interim CBI director was quashed by the top court on January 8 but the government has "acted in a completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner" to appoint him again in "complete contravention" of the DSPE Act. The plea also sought a direction to the Centre to appoint a regular CBI director forthwith by following the procedure laid down in accordance with the provision of DSPE Act, as amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Besides this, the petition has sought a direction to the government to ensure that "all records of deliberations and rational criteria related to short-listing and selection of the director, CBI, be properly recorded and made available to citizens in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act". It said the government should ensure transparency in short-listing, election and appointment process of CBI director by publicly disclosing, including through the website, the procedure and rational criteria for short-listing candidates, if any short-listing is done. The plea sought a direction to the Centre that the process of selecting CBI director, including composition, mandate and minutes of the meetings of the search committee, should be disclosed publicly along with names of short-listed candidates so that people can inform the panel of any significant adverse information they may have about any such candidate. It said that the minutes of the meetings of the selection committee should be publicly disclosed and recording of facts to indicate how the selected candidates are best suited for the post, disclosure of this information according to the provisions of the RTI Act after the appointment has been made should be there. "In so far as the appointment of the Director, CBI is concerned, the Government of India has failed to adopt proper procedures to ensure transparency in the short-listing, selection and appointment," the plea said. It claimed that lack of transparency in appointment of CBI director prevents any public scrutiny of the process and allows the "government to exercise undue influence" in the appointment process especially at the stage of short-listing of candidates. Detailing the sequence of events relating to the appointment of Rao as the interim CBI director, the plea alleged that the entire process was "mala fide" as the government wanted to "appoint its own choice as CBI Director in the interim". It said that independence and insulation of the CBI from government influence was key to ensuring its proper functioning. "The Government of India has attempted to stifle the independence of the institution of the CBI by appointing the Director of the CBI in an arbitrary and illegal manner," the plea claimed. The apex court had on January 8 allowed Alok Kumar Verma to return as the CBI director, albeit with his wings clipped, by setting aside the Centre and the CVC's orders divesting him of his powers and sending him on leave. However, the top court had said it was "still open" for the high-powered committee, which selects the CBI chief, to consider the matter within a week since the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is probing the charges of corruption against Verma. It had set aside October 23, 2018, orders of the CVC and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) divesting Verma of his powers and asking Rao to look after the duties and functions of the agency's Director. On January 10, the high-powered committee removed Verma as the CBI Director. The same day, an order was issued by the government giving Rao the charge of interim CBI director.

RTI activist challenges appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director in Supreme Court

nageswara-rao

Nageswara Rao, News on Nageswara Rao, stories on Nageswara Rao, articles on Nageswara Rao, Nageswara Rao stories at Wion, Nageswara Rao news, Nageswara Rao latest news