The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Monday filed its preliminary probe report relating to CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul took the report on record and fixed the matter for next hearing on November 16.

During the hearing, interim CBI Director M Nageswar Rao also filed a report on decisions taken by him since October 23 to 26, when the apex court had ordered for the CBI probe.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CVC, told the court that former apex court judge A K Patnaik supervised the CVC inquiry which was completed on November 10.

The CJI observed that the Registry was open on Sunday also but no intimation was given to the Registrar regarding the filing of the report.

Later the SG tendered an apology and said though he was not explaining the circumstances there was a delay on their part in submitting the report.

On October 26, the top court had appointed Justice Patnaik to supervise the ongoing inquiry of CVC against Verma.

The apex court had also issued notices to the Centre and the CVC seeking their replies on Verma's petition challenging the government's decision to divest him of his powers as CBI chief and sending him on leave.

Verma's deputy Rakesh Asthana, Special Director CBI, was also sent on leave by the Centre.

The court on October 26 had also set a deadline of two weeks for the CVC to complete the preliminary inquiry against the CBI director.

It had also barred Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision.

It had said that a list of all the decisions taken by Rao since October 23 including decisions with regard to transfer of investigations, change of investigating officer(s) etc will be furnished to the court in a sealed cover on or before November 12, 2018 whereafter orders, as would be appropriate, will be passed by the court."

Mehta had said that the CVC has been conducting an inquiry into the allegations made in the August 24 note/letter of the Cabinet Secretary with regard to Verma.

Besides the plea filed by Verma, the court is also seized of the PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, which has sought a probe by special investigation team against CBI officers including Asthana, and had issued notices to the Centre, CBI, CVC, Asthana, Verma and Rao asking them to respond to it by November 12.

Asthana has also moved the Supreme Court with a separate petition in the matter and has sought removal of Verma from the post of CBI Director. 
Later, on November 4, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge had moved the top court contending that divesting Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary".

In an interlocutory application filed in the pending petition, Kharge, who is also a member of the three-member selection committee which appoints the CBI director, said, "As a concerned stakeholder he brings to the attention of the court the brazen and illegal actions" of the political executive in interfering with the independent functioning of the CBI director.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Monday filed its preliminary probe report relating to CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Monday filed its preliminary probe report relating to CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma in a sealed cover in the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul took the report on record and fixed the matter for next hearing on November 16. During the hearing, interim CBI Director M Nageswar Rao also filed a report on decisions taken by him since October 23 to 26, when the apex court had ordered for the CBI probe. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CVC, told the court that former apex court judge A K Patnaik supervised the CVC inquiry which was completed on November 10. The CJI observed that the Registry was open on Sunday also but no intimation was given to the Registrar regarding the filing of the report. Later the SG tendered an apology and said though he was not explaining the circumstances there was a delay on their part in submitting the report. On October 26, the top court had appointed Justice Patnaik to supervise the ongoing inquiry of CVC against Verma. The apex court had also issued notices to the Centre and the CVC seeking their replies on Verma's petition challenging the government's decision to divest him of his powers as CBI chief and sending him on leave. Verma's deputy Rakesh Asthana, Special Director CBI, was also sent on leave by the Centre. The court on October 26 had also set a deadline of two weeks for the CVC to complete the preliminary inquiry against the CBI director. It had also barred Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision. It had said that a list of all the decisions taken by Rao since October 23 including decisions with regard to transfer of investigations, change of investigating officer(s) etc will be furnished to the court in a sealed cover on or before November 12, 2018 whereafter orders, as would be appropriate, will be passed by the court." Mehta had said that the CVC has been conducting an inquiry into the allegations made in the August 24 note/letter of the Cabinet Secretary with regard to Verma. Besides the plea filed by Verma, the court is also seized of the PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, which has sought a probe by special investigation team against CBI officers including Asthana, and had issued notices to the Centre, CBI, CVC, Asthana, Verma and Rao asking them to respond to it by November 12. Asthana has also moved the Supreme Court with a separate petition in the matter and has sought removal of Verma from the post of CBI Director. Later, on November 4, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge had moved the top court contending that divesting Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary". In an interlocutory application filed in the pending petition, Kharge, who is also a member of the three-member selection committee which appoints the CBI director, said, "As a concerned stakeholder he brings to the attention of the court the brazen and illegal actions" of the political executive in interfering with the independent functioning of the CBI director.

CBI feud: CVC submits probe report in Supreme Court, hearing on November 16

The tawdry battle being played out in the Supreme Court between the top two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reflects how deeply corrupt and politicised India’s premier investigative agency has become over decades of malign interference in its operations by successive governments.&nbsp;

Whatever the outcome of the Central Vigilance Commission’s findings on the dispute between CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana, systemic reform must follow. No government has had the courage to turn the CBI into an independent investigative agency. It is far too valuable a political tool.

The Supreme Court will examine the CVC’s findings next week. Supervised by former Supreme Court Justice AK Patnaik, the CVC’s conclusions may tread a cautious path. Whether or not the apex court allows Verma to resume work as director at the scheduled hearing on November 12, the real issues confronting the CBI will remain untouched: a culture of institutionalised corruption, rampant nepotism and deep politicisation

In September 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the states and the Centre to implement a seven-point directive to reform the entire policing system in India. This was a root and branch directive. Since most CBI officers are drawn from the IPS, the Supreme Court’s directive would have been the first step towards cleaning up the CBI from top to bottom.

The states and the Centre, 12 years later, have largely ignored the Supreme Court’s order. Has the apex court moved to hold them in contempt? Sadly, no. Former Director-General of Police (DGP) Prakash Singh has led the fight to implement the Supreme Court’s 2006 order. Despite sporadic hearings on his petition, the apex court has shown extraordinary leniency to allow contempt of its 12-year-old order on police reforms to go unpunished.

As he examines the CVC’s charges against Verma, CJI Ranjan Gogoi will be well aware of the seven-directive order that his predecessors have failed to enforce. A summary would jog the memory of the CJI-led bench:

Directive One: Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to: (i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; (ii) Lay down broad policy guidelines; and (iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police.

Directive Two: Ensure that the DGP is appointed through a merit-based, transparent process to secure a minimum tenure of two years.

Directive Three: Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including superintendents of police in-charge of a district and station house officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years.

Directive Four: Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police.

Directive Five: Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of deputy superintendent of police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of deputy superintendent of police.

Directive Six: Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of deputy superintendent of police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against police personnel below the rank of deputy superintendent of police in cases of serious misconduct.

Directive Seven: Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years.

Politicians regard the police not as law enforcers but as junior partners in fixing political opponents and abetting corruption. The spoils are shared from the lowly havaldar to the very top of the food chain, both in the police force and the political establishment.&nbsp;

That is why politicians across the ideological spectrum have no interest in implementing the seven Supreme Court directives on reforming the country’s corroded law enforcement infrastructure.

The power to transfer officers is a lethal weapon in the armoury of politicians and it is wielded ruthlessly. Criminals and even terrorists often escape because of the politician-police nexus underpinned by hawala funding. National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval, an IPS officer himself, stars in an apocryphal story of how in the 1980s the arrest of an underworld don, now living in Pakistan, by a high-powered police team led by Doval was subverted by this nexus.

The CBI operates under the colonial-era Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Efforts to make the CBI an autonomous body with statutory authority like SEBI, TRAI and IRDA have been brushed aside by successive governments.&nbsp;

The solution clearly lies in the implementation of the Supreme Court’s detailed seven-point directive. The apex court has been negligent in not enforcing its own order. Many of the CBI’s problems, including its status as a caged parrot during the UPA government and a subverted organisation during the current NDA government, would not have arisen had the Supreme Court-mandated police reforms been enforced.

When the Supreme Court examines the CVC’s findings, it should also exhume its 2006 order, wilfully flouted by the Centre and the states, that could transform law enforcement in India from the humble havaldar to the entitled CBI director.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-cbi-cleaning-the-rot-within-2683710">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

The tawdry battle being played out in the Supreme Court between the top two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reflects how deeply corrupt and politicised India’s premier investigative agency has become over decades of malign interference in its operations by successive governments.

The tawdry battle being played out in the Supreme Court between the top two officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reflects how deeply corrupt and politicised India’s premier investigative agency has become over decades of malign interference in its operations by successive governments. Whatever the outcome of the Central Vigilance Commission’s findings on the dispute between CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana, systemic reform must follow. No government has had the courage to turn the CBI into an independent investigative agency. It is far too valuable a political tool. The Supreme Court will examine the CVC’s findings next week. Supervised by former Supreme Court Justice AK Patnaik, the CVC’s conclusions may tread a cautious path. Whether or not the apex court allows Verma to resume work as director at the scheduled hearing on November 12, the real issues confronting the CBI will remain untouched: a culture of institutionalised corruption, rampant nepotism and deep politicisation In September 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the states and the Centre to implement a seven-point directive to reform the entire policing system in India. This was a root and branch directive. Since most CBI officers are drawn from the IPS, the Supreme Court’s directive would have been the first step towards cleaning up the CBI from top to bottom. The states and the Centre, 12 years later, have largely ignored the Supreme Court’s order. Has the apex court moved to hold them in contempt? Sadly, no. Former Director-General of Police (DGP) Prakash Singh has led the fight to implement the Supreme Court’s 2006 order. Despite sporadic hearings on his petition, the apex court has shown extraordinary leniency to allow contempt of its 12-year-old order on police reforms to go unpunished. As he examines the CVC’s charges against Verma, CJI Ranjan Gogoi will be well aware of the seven-directive order that his predecessors have failed to enforce. A summary would jog the memory of the CJI-led bench: Directive One: Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to: (i) Ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the police; (ii) Lay down broad policy guidelines; and (iii) Evaluate the performance of the state police. Directive Two: Ensure that the DGP is appointed through a merit-based, transparent process to secure a minimum tenure of two years. Directive Three: Ensure that other police officers on operational duties (including superintendents of police in-charge of a district and station house officers in-charge of a police station) are also provided a minimum tenure of two years. Directive Four: Separate the investigation and law and order functions of the police. Directive Five: Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of police officers of and below the rank of deputy superintendent of police and make recommendations on postings and transfers above the rank of deputy superintendent of police. Directive Six: Set up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at state level to inquire into public complaints against police officers of and above the rank of deputy superintendent of police in cases of serious misconduct, including custodial death, grievous hurt, or rape in police custody and at district levels to inquire into public complaints against police personnel below the rank of deputy superintendent of police in cases of serious misconduct. Directive Seven: Set up a National Security Commission (NSC) at the union level to prepare a panel for selection and placement of chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO) with a minimum tenure of two years. Politicians regard the police not as law enforcers but as junior partners in fixing political opponents and abetting corruption. The spoils are shared from the lowly havaldar to the very top of the food chain, both in the police force and the political establishment. That is why politicians across the ideological spectrum have no interest in implementing the seven Supreme Court directives on reforming the country’s corroded law enforcement infrastructure. The power to transfer officers is a lethal weapon in the armoury of politicians and it is wielded ruthlessly. Criminals and even terrorists often escape because of the politician-police nexus underpinned by hawala funding. National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval, an IPS officer himself, stars in an apocryphal story of how in the 1980s the arrest of an underworld don, now living in Pakistan, by a high-powered police team led by Doval was subverted by this nexus. The CBI operates under the colonial-era Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Efforts to make the CBI an autonomous body with statutory authority like SEBI, TRAI and IRDA have been brushed aside by successive governments. The solution clearly lies in the implementation of the Supreme Court’s detailed seven-point directive. The apex court has been negligent in not enforcing its own order. Many of the CBI’s problems, including its status as a caged parrot during the UPA government and a subverted organisation during the current NDA government, would not have arisen had the Supreme Court-mandated police reforms been enforced. When the Supreme Court examines the CVC’s findings, it should also exhume its 2006 order, wilfully flouted by the Centre and the states, that could transform law enforcement in India from the humble havaldar to the entitled CBI director. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

CBI vs CBI: Cleaning the rot within

The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the FIR on bribery allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others shows cognisable offences.

The agency opposed Asthana's plea seeking quashing of the FIR and said a roving inquiry at this stage was not permissible.&nbsp;

It also told the court that the probe against Asthana was at a nascent stage and several incriminating documents, as well as the role of other persons, was under investigation.&nbsp;

The agency said it was handicapped in the probe as certain files and documents were under the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) scrutiny.

The agency denied all adverse allegations levelled by Asthana, "whether germane or not germane", in his petition.

The petitions of Asthana, CBI DSP Devendra Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad are scheduled to come up for hearing before a bench of Justice Najmi Waziri during the day.&nbsp;

The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the FIR on bribery allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others shows cognisable offences. The agency opposed Asthana's plea seeking quashing of the FIR and said a roving inquiry at this stage was not permissible.

The CBI on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that the FIR on bribery allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others shows cognisable offences. The agency opposed Asthana's plea seeking quashing of the FIR and said a roving inquiry at this stage was not permissible. It also told the court that the probe against Asthana was at a nascent stage and several incriminating documents, as well as the role of other persons, was under investigation. The agency said it was handicapped in the probe as certain files and documents were under the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) scrutiny. The agency denied all adverse allegations levelled by Asthana, "whether germane or not germane", in his petition. The petitions of Asthana, CBI DSP Devendra Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad are scheduled to come up for hearing before a bench of Justice Najmi Waziri during the day.

FIR against Asthana shows cognisable offences: CBI to Delhi HC

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm alleged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it.

Gurm, who was transferred along with other CBI officials in the feud between CBI Director Alok Verma and Asthana, has sought to be made a party in the petition filed by Asthana.

The officer, who was transferred from Delhi to Jabalpur, has sought an opportunity to be heard in the case.

In an application before the high court, the additional SP claimed he has "reasonable" apprehension that CBI is seeking to protect and support Asthana and may not effectively contest the petition.

He has also sought dismissal of Asthana's petition.

The separate petitions of Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad seeking to quash the FIR against them are scheduled to be heard by Justice Najmi Waziri on Thursday.

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm alleged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it.

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm alleged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it. Gurm, who was transferred along with other CBI officials in the feud between CBI Director Alok Verma and Asthana, has sought to be made a party in the petition filed by Asthana. The officer, who was transferred from Delhi to Jabalpur, has sought an opportunity to be heard in the case. In an application before the high court, the additional SP claimed he has "reasonable" apprehension that CBI is seeking to protect and support Asthana and may not effectively contest the petition. He has also sought dismissal of Asthana's petition. The separate petitions of Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad seeking to quash the FIR against them are scheduled to be heard by Justice Najmi Waziri on Thursday.

CBI Additional SP Gurm approaches Delhi High Court against Asthana

The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Hyderabad Police to provide adequate security to businessman Satish Sana, complainant in the alleged bribery case against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph refused to stay the CBI summons against him and also rejected his plea for recording of his statement in presence of retired former Supreme Court judge A K Patnaik.&nbsp;

Sana, on whose complaint an FIR was registered against the CBI Special Director, had moved the apex court on Monday seeking police protection and a stay on the notice issued by the agency summoning him for interrogation.&nbsp;

The CBI had booked Asthana on October 15 on the basis of a complaint from Sana, facing probe in a 2017 case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, claiming that the special director had allegedly helped him to get a clean chit from the probe agency.

Besides seeking a stay on CBI's summons against him, Sana in his petition had expressed fear for his life and sought police protection during the pendency of the inquiry against Asthana, who along side CBI Director Alok Verma has been divested of duties and sent on leave by the Central government.&nbsp;

The businessman, in his plea, had referred to the apex court's October 26 order on the petition of the CBI Director by which the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was asked to conclude inquiry against Verma within two weeks under the supervision of former apex court judge Justice A K Patnaik.

He had said that the CBI moved "in haste" to issue notice to him under Section 160 of the CrPC (Code Of Criminal Procedure) to attend the proceedings on October 29 before the probe agency and said that the same be recorded before Justice Patnaik.

Sana had said that he gave a statement under section 161 before the CBI on a October 20 and on the same day, under section 164 statement was recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate in Saket Court and the relevant statements of the applicant are already in record.

He had said that he has written a letter to Justice (retired) Patnaik, who would be supervising the CVC's inquiry into the allegations against Verma, stating readiness and willingness to give statements under his supervision.

He had sought the court's direction that he be questioned only under the supervision of Justice Patnaik.

"This will ensure that the interests of justice are met since the applicant came forward as a whistle blower trusting the officials of the CBI.&nbsp;Without casting any aspersions on the present Investigating Officer, the applicant fears that the change in IO and other surrounding circumstances may put his life in danger and therefore seeks a direction to the Hyderabad SP to provide police protection to the applicant till such time as the inquiry mandated by the top court is completed," the plea had said.&nbsp;

Sana had also said that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation by coming to Delhi as and when directed by the judge supervising the enquiry.&nbsp;

The feud between Verma and Asthana escalated recently leading to registration of an FIR against Asthana and others including Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who is in the CBI custody in an alleged bribery case.

The FIR was lodged on a written complaint of Sana on October 15. It alleged that Kumar, the investigating officer (IO) in a case, was repeatedly calling him to the CBI office to harass and compel him to pay bribe of Rs 5 crore for giving him clean chit.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Hyderabad Police to provide adequate security to businessman Satish Sana, complainant in the alleged bribery case against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

The Supreme Court Tuesday directed the Hyderabad Police to provide adequate security to businessman Satish Sana, complainant in the alleged bribery case against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph refused to stay the CBI summons against him and also rejected his plea for recording of his statement in presence of retired former Supreme Court judge A K Patnaik. Sana, on whose complaint an FIR was registered against the CBI Special Director, had moved the apex court on Monday seeking police protection and a stay on the notice issued by the agency summoning him for interrogation. The CBI had booked Asthana on October 15 on the basis of a complaint from Sana, facing probe in a 2017 case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, claiming that the special director had allegedly helped him to get a clean chit from the probe agency. Besides seeking a stay on CBI's summons against him, Sana in his petition had expressed fear for his life and sought police protection during the pendency of the inquiry against Asthana, who along side CBI Director Alok Verma has been divested of duties and sent on leave by the Central government. The businessman, in his plea, had referred to the apex court's October 26 order on the petition of the CBI Director by which the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was asked to conclude inquiry against Verma within two weeks under the supervision of former apex court judge Justice A K Patnaik. He had said that the CBI moved "in haste" to issue notice to him under Section 160 of the CrPC (Code Of Criminal Procedure) to attend the proceedings on October 29 before the probe agency and said that the same be recorded before Justice Patnaik. Sana had said that he gave a statement under section 161 before the CBI on a October 20 and on the same day, under section 164 statement was recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate in Saket Court and the relevant statements of the applicant are already in record. He had said that he has written a letter to Justice (retired) Patnaik, who would be supervising the CVC's inquiry into the allegations against Verma, stating readiness and willingness to give statements under his supervision. He had sought the court's direction that he be questioned only under the supervision of Justice Patnaik. "This will ensure that the interests of justice are met since the applicant came forward as a whistle blower trusting the officials of the CBI. Without casting any aspersions on the present Investigating Officer, the applicant fears that the change in IO and other surrounding circumstances may put his life in danger and therefore seeks a direction to the Hyderabad SP to provide police protection to the applicant till such time as the inquiry mandated by the top court is completed," the plea had said. Sana had also said that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation by coming to Delhi as and when directed by the judge supervising the enquiry. The feud between Verma and Asthana escalated recently leading to registration of an FIR against Asthana and others including Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who is in the CBI custody in an alleged bribery case. The FIR was lodged on a written complaint of Sana on October 15. It alleged that Kumar, the investigating officer (IO) in a case, was repeatedly calling him to the CBI office to harass and compel him to pay bribe of Rs 5 crore for giving him clean chit.

SC directs Hyderabad Police to provide adequate security to complainant against Rakesh Asthana

The Delhi High Court Tuesday said it would hear on November 1 a plea of middleman Manoj Prasad, arrested in the bribery case involving CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, seeking quashing of the FIR against him.

Justice Najmi Waziri, who was scheduled to hear the petition Tuesday, listed it for Thursday after Prasad’s counsel sought an adjournment saying the senior advocate who has to argue the matter was on his legs in the Supreme Court.

On November 1, the court would hear three separate pleas — of Asthana, CBI Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and Prasad seeking quashing of FIR against them.

The court had on Monday heard the three pleas, while Asthana and Kumar’s petitions were listed for November, Prasad’s matter was fixed for Tuesday.

Prasad, arrested on October 17, was produced before a trial court in Delhi Tuesday on expiry of his CBI custody and was sent to 14-day in judicial custody along with Kumar, who was arrested on October 23.

The high court had on Monday observed that Prasad’s case was on a different footing from that of Asthana and Kumar.

It had said Prasad was a private person while Asthana and Kumar were public servants and nothing stops CBI from probing a private individual.

Prasad has also sought a stay on the investigation by the agency till the disposal of the petition.

The CBI had registered the case against Asthana on the basis of a complaint from Hyderabad-based businessman Satish Sana, facing probe in the 2017 case allegedly involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi.

Sana alleged that the officer had helped him get a clean chit.

The agency had also arrested Prasad in the case, when he returned from Dubai. It was alleged by Sana that Prasad and his brother Somesh had taken Rs 2 crore to arrange clean chit to him.

Prasad, a resident of Burj Khalifa in Dubai, has arrayed as respondents — the CBI, its chief Alok Kumar Verma, Superintendent of Police S S Gurm, Deputy Superintendent Ajay Kumar Bassi — in the matter.

He has also arrayed Sana as a respondent on whose complaint the FIR was lodged.

Prasad’s sister has filed the petition on his behalf on October 26.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday said it would hear on November 1 a plea of middleman Manoj Prasad, arrested in the bribery case involving CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, seeking quashing of the FIR against him.

The Delhi High Court Tuesday said it would hear on November 1 a plea of middleman Manoj Prasad, arrested in the bribery case involving CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, seeking quashing of the FIR against him. Justice Najmi Waziri, who was scheduled to hear the petition Tuesday, listed it for Thursday after Prasad’s counsel sought an adjournment saying the senior advocate who has to argue the matter was on his legs in the Supreme Court. On November 1, the court would hear three separate pleas — of Asthana, CBI Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and Prasad seeking quashing of FIR against them. The court had on Monday heard the three pleas, while Asthana and Kumar’s petitions were listed for November, Prasad’s matter was fixed for Tuesday. Prasad, arrested on October 17, was produced before a trial court in Delhi Tuesday on expiry of his CBI custody and was sent to 14-day in judicial custody along with Kumar, who was arrested on October 23. The high court had on Monday observed that Prasad’s case was on a different footing from that of Asthana and Kumar. It had said Prasad was a private person while Asthana and Kumar were public servants and nothing stops CBI from probing a private individual. Prasad has also sought a stay on the investigation by the agency till the disposal of the petition. The CBI had registered the case against Asthana on the basis of a complaint from Hyderabad-based businessman Satish Sana, facing probe in the 2017 case allegedly involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi. Sana alleged that the officer had helped him get a clean chit. The agency had also arrested Prasad in the case, when he returned from Dubai. It was alleged by Sana that Prasad and his brother Somesh had taken Rs 2 crore to arrange clean chit to him. Prasad, a resident of Burj Khalifa in Dubai, has arrayed as respondents — the CBI, its chief Alok Kumar Verma, Superintendent of Police S S Gurm, Deputy Superintendent Ajay Kumar Bassi — in the matter. He has also arrayed Sana as a respondent on whose complaint the FIR was lodged. Prasad’s sister has filed the petition on his behalf on October 26.

CBI row: Delhi HC to hear middleman’s plea on November 1 in bribery case involving Rakesh Asthana

CBI officer AK Bassi, who had been investigating Special Director Rakesh Asthana, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer.&nbsp;

Bassi was transferred to Port Blair in the Andamans after the government sent <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-vs-cbi-alok-verma-did-not-back-up-allegations-against-rakesh-asthana-says-goverment-173201">CBI Director Alok Verma</a> and Special Director Rakesh Asthana (the agency's second in command) on leave.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
AK Bassi says he has incriminating evidence against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RakeshAsthana?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RakeshAsthana</a> in bribery case and asks Supreme Court to call for evidence of technical surveillance. Bassi also seeks setting up a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate charges against Asthana. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CBI?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CBI</a> <a href="https://t.co/M1glPWvhE4">https://t.co/M1glPWvhE4</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1057141776488775680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2018</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>

Verma and Asthana had been feuding with both accusing the other of corruption.&nbsp;

Verma had written to the CVC in 2017 before Asthana joined the agency saying he was being investigated, by the CBI, on corruption charges. And that he should therefore not be inducted into the CBI.&nbsp;

After Asthana was inducted into the CBI, he wrote to the CVC and the Cabinet Secretary saying Verma was guilty of corruption. Asthana is seen as being close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah.&nbsp;

Asthana was the police officer who probed the Godhra train-burning case, which led to the Gujarat riots of 2002. He had also probed the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case in which Amit Shah was an accused. The BJP president was later dismissed from the case.&nbsp;

Two weeks ago, the CBI filed an FIR against Asthana. In the FIR, Asthana was accused of asking for a bribe to let the businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case.&nbsp;

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to give Bassi an urgent hearing.&nbsp;

Bassi said he had incriminating evidence against Asthana. Bassi also aksed for the setting up of a Special Investigation Team to probe the bribery charge against Asthana.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

CBI officer AK Bassi, who had been investigating Special Director Rakesh Asthana, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer. Bassi was transferred to Port Blair in the Andamans after the government sent CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana (the agency's second in command) on leave.

CBI officer AK Bassi, who had been investigating Special Director Rakesh Asthana, has moved the Supreme Court challenging his transfer. Bassi was transferred to Port Blair in the Andamans after the government sent CBI Director Alok Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana (the agency's second in command) on leave. AK Bassi says he has incriminating evidence against #RakeshAsthana in bribery case and asks Supreme Court to call for evidence of technical surveillance. Bassi also seeks setting up a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate charges against Asthana. #CBI https://t.co/M1glPWvhE4 — ANI (@ANI) October 30, 2018 × Verma and Asthana had been feuding with both accusing the other of corruption. Verma had written to the CVC in 2017 before Asthana joined the agency saying he was being investigated, by the CBI, on corruption charges. And that he should therefore not be inducted into the CBI. After Asthana was inducted into the CBI, he wrote to the CVC and the Cabinet Secretary saying Verma was guilty of corruption. Asthana is seen as being close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah. Asthana was the police officer who probed the Godhra train-burning case, which led to the Gujarat riots of 2002. He had also probed the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case in which Amit Shah was an accused. The BJP president was later dismissed from the case. Two weeks ago, the CBI filed an FIR against Asthana. In the FIR, Asthana was accused of asking for a bribe to let the businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case. On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to give Bassi an urgent hearing. Bassi said he had incriminating evidence against Asthana. Bassi also aksed for the setting up of a Special Investigation Team to probe the bribery charge against Asthana.

CBI vs CBI: Officer investigating Asthana moves SC, says he has evidence of bribery

The din over the pre-Diwali implosion within the CBI refuses to die down as the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Vigilance Commissioner to complete the probe against CBI chief Alok Verma within two weeks. Verma, along with his deputy, special director Rakesh Asthana, was forced to go on leave by the Modi government in a midnight order last week. Verma had knocked on the doors of the apex court challenging the government order.

A former SC judge shall oversee the CVC enquiry against Verma. The court also reined in interim director Nageswara Rao asking him to refrain from taking policy decisions till pending enquiry.

The drama over the feud between CBI’s two top bosses spilled over in the courtroom on Friday when the SC refused to hear Asthana’s petition on the ground that his petition was not listed. The Centre pleaded the CVC inquiry should also include enquiry against Asthana but the Court dismissed it saying it was only concerned with Verma’s case.

Challenging the government order, Verma cites the SC-mandated order that protects the two-year tenure of the CBI director. Also, that the concurrence of the committee responsible for the selection of the CBI director has to be taken to transfer the CBI director, which, in his case, has been bypassed by the Centre. But Verma’s petition does not stop at just that.

In his petition Verma builds his case to suggest how political influence is being brought to bear upon the investigating agency, which is not always explicit or in writing. “More often than not, it is tacit, and requires considerable courage to withstand it.”

While Verma’s plea is confined to restoring his authority and position for the rest of his term, his petition does touch upon the grey areas within which the CBI has to mostly operate. By raking up the issue of political influence, Verma is not stating anything new but only confirming the fears that the CBI, after all, ends up as handmaid of the powers-that-be.

The CBI was set up in 1963 with the exclusive motive of investigating complicated cases of crimes such as murder and kidnapping. It soon established its reputation as India’s foremost investigating agency, gradually taking up cases of terrorism also. But the criminal-politician nexus grew and matters reached a head in the Eighties.

The judiciary’s pro-active interference led to many high-profile cases landing up at the CBI’s doorstep. As the economy opened up, it also flung its doors wider for financial corruption of humongous magnitude.

No wonder, in 1987, the CBI was divided into several divisions, the prominent being the anti-corruption wing, the economic offences section, and the special crimes division.

As the country entered the coalition era in the Nineties, political parties dropped all pretences of safeguarding CBI’s integrity. The CBI was used not merely as a stick to beat one’s political rival with but also to keep the coalition together and the government afloat.

So despite the CBI investigating cases of Taj corridor or disproportionate assets, regional satraps like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, for instance, were being courted and browbeaten as the popularity of the ruling party waxed and waned.

Majority governments used ‘tacit influence’– the kind Verma talks about in his petition – rather ingeniously. Therefore, the CBI looked the other way when Jagdish Tytler was discharged from the lower courts in cases of anti-Sikh riots of 1984.

It wasn’t much different for other celebrated cases like the Bofors, involving mega bribes and Quattrocchi. The allegations of political interference have only amplified with the passing years.

By 2012, the new CBI director Ranjit Sinha under UPA-2 took it to a different level, trying desperately to be more loyal than the king. It was reported that the accused in 2G and coal scam cases had access to Sinha’s official residence.

Meat exporter Moin Qureshi, linked to the current CBI crisis, involved in several cases of corruption and money laundering, reportedly visited the official residence of CBI director Ranjit Kumar 70 times during 2013-14.

The current crisis of credibility in the CBI has all the shades of yesterday once more. Only that this time the CBI is at war with itself. Verma has accused Asthana of “creating hurdles” in decisions crucial to the progress of investigation of certain sensitive cases and has “concocted evidence” to malign his reputation.

The big question is why do governments need a pliant man in CBI; what does it say about the integrity of the agency? How can we ensure a climate of fair and impartial investigation? Will the current crisis serve as a wake-up call for decision makers to consider granting more autonomy to the CBI that minimises incidence of conflict of interest or, better still, insulates it from any “outside influence”?

The CBI implosion comes at a time when political parties are girding their loins for yet another battle for Lok Sabha. Opposition parties gave a political twist to the CBI feud linking it to Rafale fighter scam. They claimed Verma was forced to exit because he had stumbled upon complaints that linked Modi government to the Rafale scam.

All eyes shall be on the Supreme Court on November 12 when it takes stock of the CVC report. The apex court’s decision shall not only have a bearing on the fate of CBI but shall also influence the course of politics which is being increasingly determined by the narrative of political corruption.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-more-than-just-a-turf-war-2680022">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The din over the pre-Diwali implosion within the CBI refuses to die down as the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Vigilance Commissioner to complete the probe against CBI chief Alok Verma within two weeks.

The din over the pre-Diwali implosion within the CBI refuses to die down as the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Central Vigilance Commissioner to complete the probe against CBI chief Alok Verma within two weeks. Verma, along with his deputy, special director Rakesh Asthana, was forced to go on leave by the Modi government in a midnight order last week. Verma had knocked on the doors of the apex court challenging the government order. A former SC judge shall oversee the CVC enquiry against Verma. The court also reined in interim director Nageswara Rao asking him to refrain from taking policy decisions till pending enquiry. The drama over the feud between CBI’s two top bosses spilled over in the courtroom on Friday when the SC refused to hear Asthana’s petition on the ground that his petition was not listed. The Centre pleaded the CVC inquiry should also include enquiry against Asthana but the Court dismissed it saying it was only concerned with Verma’s case. Challenging the government order, Verma cites the SC-mandated order that protects the two-year tenure of the CBI director. Also, that the concurrence of the committee responsible for the selection of the CBI director has to be taken to transfer the CBI director, which, in his case, has been bypassed by the Centre. But Verma’s petition does not stop at just that. In his petition Verma builds his case to suggest how political influence is being brought to bear upon the investigating agency, which is not always explicit or in writing. “More often than not, it is tacit, and requires considerable courage to withstand it.” While Verma’s plea is confined to restoring his authority and position for the rest of his term, his petition does touch upon the grey areas within which the CBI has to mostly operate. By raking up the issue of political influence, Verma is not stating anything new but only confirming the fears that the CBI, after all, ends up as handmaid of the powers-that-be. The CBI was set up in 1963 with the exclusive motive of investigating complicated cases of crimes such as murder and kidnapping. It soon established its reputation as India’s foremost investigating agency, gradually taking up cases of terrorism also. But the criminal-politician nexus grew and matters reached a head in the Eighties. The judiciary’s pro-active interference led to many high-profile cases landing up at the CBI’s doorstep. As the economy opened up, it also flung its doors wider for financial corruption of humongous magnitude. No wonder, in 1987, the CBI was divided into several divisions, the prominent being the anti-corruption wing, the economic offences section, and the special crimes division. As the country entered the coalition era in the Nineties, political parties dropped all pretences of safeguarding CBI’s integrity. The CBI was used not merely as a stick to beat one’s political rival with but also to keep the coalition together and the government afloat. So despite the CBI investigating cases of Taj corridor or disproportionate assets, regional satraps like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, for instance, were being courted and browbeaten as the popularity of the ruling party waxed and waned. Majority governments used ‘tacit influence’– the kind Verma talks about in his petition – rather ingeniously. Therefore, the CBI looked the other way when Jagdish Tytler was discharged from the lower courts in cases of anti-Sikh riots of 1984. It wasn’t much different for other celebrated cases like the Bofors, involving mega bribes and Quattrocchi. The allegations of political interference have only amplified with the passing years. By 2012, the new CBI director Ranjit Sinha under UPA-2 took it to a different level, trying desperately to be more loyal than the king. It was reported that the accused in 2G and coal scam cases had access to Sinha’s official residence. Meat exporter Moin Qureshi, linked to the current CBI crisis, involved in several cases of corruption and money laundering, reportedly visited the official residence of CBI director Ranjit Kumar 70 times during 2013-14. The current crisis of credibility in the CBI has all the shades of yesterday once more. Only that this time the CBI is at war with itself. Verma has accused Asthana of “creating hurdles” in decisions crucial to the progress of investigation of certain sensitive cases and has “concocted evidence” to malign his reputation. The big question is why do governments need a pliant man in CBI; what does it say about the integrity of the agency? How can we ensure a climate of fair and impartial investigation? Will the current crisis serve as a wake-up call for decision makers to consider granting more autonomy to the CBI that minimises incidence of conflict of interest or, better still, insulates it from any “outside influence”? The CBI implosion comes at a time when political parties are girding their loins for yet another battle for Lok Sabha. Opposition parties gave a political twist to the CBI feud linking it to Rafale fighter scam. They claimed Verma was forced to exit because he had stumbled upon complaints that linked Modi government to the Rafale scam. All eyes shall be on the Supreme Court on November 12 when it takes stock of the CVC report. The apex court’s decision shall not only have a bearing on the fate of CBI but shall also influence the course of politics which is being increasingly determined by the narrative of political corruption. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

More than just a turf war

Special Director Rakesh Asthana, embroiled in an unprecedented feud with CBI Chief Alok Verma, moved the Supreme Court on Friday challenging the Centre's decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave and claimed that he was a "whistle-blower".

In his petition, Asthana has also sought the removal of the CBI director from his post.

When a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph was hearing Verma's petition, the counsel appearing for Asthana drew the attention to the plea filed by him.&nbsp;

However, the bench said that it cannot grant any hearing on the oral submission as Asthana's petition was not before it.

"We cannot hear something which is not before us," the bench said.&nbsp;

Senior advocate and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Asthana, submitted that the petition has been filed before the Registry and sought that it be listed on October 29.

"We will see," the bench said.

Rohatgi further said that Asthana has also been made a party in the PIL, filed by NGO 'Common Cause', seeking the court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against top officials of the probe agency.

Asthana, a 1986-batch Gujarat-cadre IPS officer who had probed the sensational fodder scam cases involving former Bihar chief ministers Lalu Prasad and Jagnnath Mishra, has sought setting aside of the October 23 decision of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to divest him of his power and sending him on leave.

The petition, filed through lawyer Amit Anand Tiwari, referred to the sequence of events and said it was Asthana who has acted as a whistle-blower by approaching the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on August 24 with the corruption complaint against the CBI Director.

While the CBI Director was given opportunities to respond to the complaint before the CVC, Asthana was divested of his office without being granted an opportunity to respond.

The Special Director's plea accused the Centre of siding with the corrupt CBI chief and alleged that he has been victimised for his bonafide actions.

The action against him cannot be taken on the ground of parity, it added.&nbsp;

Asthana had on August 24 had lodged a complaint to the Cabinet Secretary alleging misconduct by CBI Director and the matter was referred to the CVC for further action.

The CBI Director, in turn, told the CVC that Asthana was facing probe in six cases of corruption.

The probe agency then, on October 15, lodged the FIR with bribery allegations against Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, Dubai-based investment banker Manoj Prasad and his brother Somesh Prasad.&nbsp;

Kumar is in the CBI custody.&nbsp;

Special Director Rakesh Asthana, embroiled in an unprecedented feud with CBI Chief Alok Verma, moved the Supreme Court on Friday challenging the Centre's decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave and claimed that he was a "whistle-blower".

Special Director Rakesh Asthana, embroiled in an unprecedented feud with CBI Chief Alok Verma, moved the Supreme Court on Friday challenging the Centre's decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave and claimed that he was a "whistle-blower". In his petition, Asthana has also sought the removal of the CBI director from his post. When a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph was hearing Verma's petition, the counsel appearing for Asthana drew the attention to the plea filed by him. However, the bench said that it cannot grant any hearing on the oral submission as Asthana's petition was not before it. "We cannot hear something which is not before us," the bench said. Senior advocate and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Asthana, submitted that the petition has been filed before the Registry and sought that it be listed on October 29. "We will see," the bench said. Rohatgi further said that Asthana has also been made a party in the PIL, filed by NGO 'Common Cause', seeking the court-monitored SIT probe into allegations of corruption against top officials of the probe agency. Asthana, a 1986-batch Gujarat-cadre IPS officer who had probed the sensational fodder scam cases involving former Bihar chief ministers Lalu Prasad and Jagnnath Mishra, has sought setting aside of the October 23 decision of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to divest him of his power and sending him on leave. The petition, filed through lawyer Amit Anand Tiwari, referred to the sequence of events and said it was Asthana who has acted as a whistle-blower by approaching the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on August 24 with the corruption complaint against the CBI Director. While the CBI Director was given opportunities to respond to the complaint before the CVC, Asthana was divested of his office without being granted an opportunity to respond. The Special Director's plea accused the Centre of siding with the corrupt CBI chief and alleged that he has been victimised for his bonafide actions. The action against him cannot be taken on the ground of parity, it added. Asthana had on August 24 had lodged a complaint to the Cabinet Secretary alleging misconduct by CBI Director and the matter was referred to the CVC for further action. The CBI Director, in turn, told the CVC that Asthana was facing probe in six cases of corruption. The probe agency then, on October 15, lodged the FIR with bribery allegations against Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, Dubai-based investment banker Manoj Prasad and his brother Somesh Prasad. Kumar is in the CBI custody.

Special CBI Director Rakesh Asthana moves SC against Centre's decision to divest him of duties 

The Supreme Court Friday sought a response from Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Centre on agency Director Alok Kumar Verma's plea challenging the government's decision to divest him of his duties and send him on leave.

The apex court directed that interim CBI chief M Nageswara Rao shall not take any major policy decisions. Decisions taken by him since October 23 till date shall not be implemented, it said.

All decisions taken by Rao shall be placed before the apex court in a sealed cover.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi heard the plea. Senior advocate F S Nariman advanced arguments on behalf of the CBI chief.

Nariman referred to the CVC and Centre's orders divesting Verma of his duty. He also cited the Vineet Narain judgment to support Verma's pleas.

The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, issued notices on the petition filed by an NGO, Common Cause, which has sought a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against the CBI officers.

CBI's Special Director Rakesh Asthana has also been named as one of the respondents in the NGO's petition.

Verma and Asthana have made allegations of corruption against each other.

The top court today said former Supreme Court judge A K Patnaik will oversee a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) inquiry into the allegations and counter allegations and the report has to be placed before it within two weeks.

Next date of hearing has been scheduled to November 12.

The Supreme Court Friday sought a response from Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Centre on agency Director Alok Kumar Verma's plea challenging the government's decision to divest him of his duties and send him on leave.

The Supreme Court Friday sought a response from Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Centre on agency Director Alok Kumar Verma's plea challenging the government's decision to divest him of his duties and send him on leave. The apex court directed that interim CBI chief M Nageswara Rao shall not take any major policy decisions. Decisions taken by him since October 23 till date shall not be implemented, it said. All decisions taken by Rao shall be placed before the apex court in a sealed cover. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi heard the plea. Senior advocate F S Nariman advanced arguments on behalf of the CBI chief. Nariman referred to the CVC and Centre's orders divesting Verma of his duty. He also cited the Vineet Narain judgment to support Verma's pleas. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, issued notices on the petition filed by an NGO, Common Cause, which has sought a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against the CBI officers. CBI's Special Director Rakesh Asthana has also been named as one of the respondents in the NGO's petition. Verma and Asthana have made allegations of corruption against each other. The top court today said former Supreme Court judge A K Patnaik will oversee a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) inquiry into the allegations and counter allegations and the report has to be placed before it within two weeks. Next date of hearing has been scheduled to November 12.

Alok Verma case: SC orders CVC probe, asks interim CBI chief not to take policy decisions

Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Thursday said that his party will stage protests against what he described as ''PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief. &nbsp;

According to Rahul's tweet, the party would stage protests in front of CBI offices across the country on Friday.&nbsp;

''Tomorrow, outside CBI offices nationwide, the Congress party will protest the PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief. &nbsp;I will lead the protests outside CBI HQ in Delhi, at 11 AM,'' the Congress president said in the tweet.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) &nbsp;director Alok Verma and his deputy Rakesh Asthana were divested of all duties late on Tuesday following a feud between the two.

Joint director M Nageswar Rao, a 1986-batch Orissa-cadre officer, who was asked to take over as acting chief immediately, in his first order, removed the entire team probing the bribery case against Asthana, including Ajay Bassi, the investigation officer (IO) and deputy inspector general Manish Sinha. (Follow live updates here)

Meanwhile, Verma has moved the Supreme Court challenging his removal and the appointment of a new director. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will hear plea on Friday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Tomorrow, outside CBI offices nationwide, the Congress party will protest the PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief. 
 
I will lead the protests outside CBI HQ in Delhi, at 11 AM. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CBIRafaleGate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CBIRafaleGate</a>
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi/status/1055485702283161601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2018</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>

&nbsp;

Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Thursday said that his party will stage protests against what he described as ''PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief.

Congress President Rahul Gandhi on Thursday said that his party will stage protests against what he described as ''PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief. According to Rahul's tweet, the party would stage protests in front of CBI offices across the country on Friday. ''Tomorrow, outside CBI offices nationwide, the Congress party will protest the PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief. I will lead the protests outside CBI HQ in Delhi, at 11 AM,'' the Congress president said in the tweet. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Alok Verma and his deputy Rakesh Asthana were divested of all duties late on Tuesday following a feud between the two. Joint director M Nageswar Rao, a 1986-batch Orissa-cadre officer, who was asked to take over as acting chief immediately, in his first order, removed the entire team probing the bribery case against Asthana, including Ajay Bassi, the investigation officer (IO) and deputy inspector general Manish Sinha. (Follow live updates here) Meanwhile, Verma has moved the Supreme Court challenging his removal and the appointment of a new director. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will hear plea on Friday. Tomorrow, outside CBI offices nationwide, the Congress party will protest the PM’s disgraceful attempt to prevent an investigation into the Rafale scam, by removing the CBI Chief. I will lead the protests outside CBI HQ in Delhi, at 11 AM. #CBIRafaleGate — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 25, 2018 ×

Congress to hold protest outside CBI offices against removal of Alok Verma

CBI spokesperson on Thursday said that Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana would remain CBI director and special director, respectively.&nbsp;

Alok Verma will continue to remain CBI director and Rakesh Asthana as special director. M Nageshwar Rao will look after duties and functions of the CBI director in the interim period till the time CVC looks into the allegations, the CBI official spokesperson said.

The spokesperson further said that whatever they are doing is to ensure that the credibility of the agency does not suffer.&nbsp;

''We are conscious of the fact that any fall in credibility and image of the agency has the potential to impact the important cases we are fighting internationally. Whatever we are doing is to ensure that credibility of the agency does not suffer,'' spokesperson further said.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, Verma and Asthana were asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter.&nbsp;

The feud between Verma and Asthana has been marked by allegations and counter-allegations of corruption and interference in high-profile cases.

CBI joint director Nageshwar Rao will take charge of the investigation agency as new interim chief.

CBI spokesperson on Thursday said that Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana would remain CBI director and special director, respectively. Alok Verma will continue to remain CBI director and Rakesh Asthana as special director.

CBI spokesperson on Thursday said that Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana would remain CBI director and special director, respectively. Alok Verma will continue to remain CBI director and Rakesh Asthana as special director. M Nageshwar Rao will look after duties and functions of the CBI director in the interim period till the time CVC looks into the allegations, the CBI official spokesperson said. The spokesperson further said that whatever they are doing is to ensure that the credibility of the agency does not suffer. ''We are conscious of the fact that any fall in credibility and image of the agency has the potential to impact the important cases we are fighting internationally. Whatever we are doing is to ensure that credibility of the agency does not suffer,'' spokesperson further said. On Wednesday, Verma and Asthana were asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter. The feud between Verma and Asthana has been marked by allegations and counter-allegations of corruption and interference in high-profile cases. CBI joint director Nageshwar Rao will take charge of the investigation agency as new interim chief.

Alok Verma to remain CBI director, Rakesh Asthana special director: CBI spokesperson

Watch: WION Fineprint, 24th October, 2018

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-top-boss-and-deputy-removed-nageswar-rao-takes-interim-charge-173104">Crisis in CBI: Nageswar Rao takes interim charge, director Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana asked to go on leave</a>

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) top boss Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, the special director who is the No 2 at CBI have been asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter.&nbsp;CBI joint director Nageshwar Rao will take charge of the investigation agency as new interim chief.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/khashoggi-killing-trump-slams-worst-cover-up-ever-173083">Trump says Saudis staged 'worst cover-up ever' on Khashoggi; </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/khashoggi-killing-trump-slams-worst-cover-up-ever-173083">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/khashoggi-killing-trump-slams-worst-cover-up-ever-173083"> revokes visas of some Saudis</a>

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday said Saudi authorities staged the "worst cover-up ever" in the&nbsp;killing of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggithis month, as the United States vowed to revoke the visas of some of those believed to be responsible.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/champions-league-ronaldos-juventus-beat-manchester-united-173091">Champions League: Ronaldo's Juventus beat Manchester United</a>

An impressive Juventus beat Manchester United 1-0 at Old Trafford on Tuesday to take command of Champions League Group H with a maximum nine points from three games and demonstrate just how far Jose Mourinho's side are from Europe's elite.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/petrol-diesel-prices-decline-for-seventh-straight-day-check-rates-in-delhi-mumbai-173086">Petrol prices decline for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/petrol-diesel-prices-decline-for-seventh-straight-day-check-rates-in-delhi-mumbai-173086">seventh</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/petrol-diesel-prices-decline-for-seventh-straight-day-check-rates-in-delhi-mumbai-173086"> straight day: Check rates in Delhi, Mumbai</a>

Fuel prices witnessed further reduction on Wednesday, providing some relief to consumers from relentless rate hikes.&nbsp;The petrol price in Delhi was revised to Rs 81.25 per litre (decrease by Rs 0.09), while that in Mumbai was Rs 86.73 per litre (decrease by Rs 0.08).

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/hurricane-willa-makes-landfall-in-mexico-173093">Hurricane Willa makes landfall in Mexico</a>

Hurricane Willa made landfall in Mexico Tuesday, lashing the Pacific coast with powerful wind, heavy rain and what forecasters warned was "extremely dangerous" storm surge.

Crisis in CBI: Nageswar Rao takes interim charge, director Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana asked to go on leave Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) top boss Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, the special director who is the No 2 at CBI have been asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter.

Crisis in CBI: Nageswar Rao takes interim charge, director Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana asked to go on leave Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) top boss Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, the special director who is the No 2 at CBI have been asked to go on leave in the midst of an internal rift over bribery allegations against the latter. CBI joint director Nageshwar Rao will take charge of the investigation agency as new interim chief. Trump says Saudis staged 'worst cover-up ever' on Khashoggi; US revokes visas of some Saudis President Donald Trump said on Tuesday said Saudi authorities staged the "worst cover-up ever" in the killing of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggithis month, as the United States vowed to revoke the visas of some of those believed to be responsible. Champions League: Ronaldo's Juventus beat Manchester United An impressive Juventus beat Manchester United 1-0 at Old Trafford on Tuesday to take command of Champions League Group H with a maximum nine points from three games and demonstrate just how far Jose Mourinho's side are from Europe's elite. Petrol prices decline for seventh straight day: Check rates in Delhi, Mumbai Fuel prices witnessed further reduction on Wednesday, providing some relief to consumers from relentless rate hikes. The petrol price in Delhi was revised to Rs 81.25 per litre (decrease by Rs 0.09), while that in Mumbai was Rs 86.73 per litre (decrease by Rs 0.08). Hurricane Willa makes landfall in Mexico Hurricane Willa made landfall in Mexico Tuesday, lashing the Pacific coast with powerful wind, heavy rain and what forecasters warned was "extremely dangerous" storm surge.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The government on Wednesday alleged that CBI Director Alok Verma did not back up the allegations of corruption against his former second-in-command Rakesh Asthana.&nbsp;

The allegations of corruption were levelled before Asthana was made Special Director of the CBI. Verma had at the time written to the Central Vigilance Commission, saying the bureau was investigating Asthana.&nbsp;

Asthana later wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and the CVC alleging that Verma was guilty of corruption.&nbsp;

A little later the CBI filed an FIR against Asthana.&nbsp;

The government stepped in on Wednesday, sending both Verma and Asthana on leave. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-action-intended-to-restore-credibility-of-cbi-arun-jaitley-on-sending-cbi-directors-on-leave-173155">it was necessary to do so</a> to maintain the credibility of the country's premier investigative agency.&nbsp;

In its statement on Wednesday, the government said the CVC, on receipt of a complaint on August 24, 2018 containing various allegations against senior functionaries of the CBI, had served three notices under Section 11 of the CVC Act, 2003 on September 11 on the CBI director to produce files and documents before the commission on September 14.&nbsp;

Various opportunities were given to produce such records and after several adjournments, the CBI assured the commission on September 24 of furnishing them within three weeks.&nbsp;

"Despite repeated assurances and reminders, the Director, CBI, failed to furnish the records/files before the commission. The CVC has observed that Director, CBI, has not been cooperating in making available records/files sought by the commission relating to serious allegations," the statement read.

The CVC has also observed that the CBI director has been non-cooperative, non-compliant with the requirements/directions and has created willful obstructions in the functioning of the commission which is a constitutional body.&nbsp;

Asthana is thought of as being close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah.&nbsp;

Asthana handled the Godhra train-burning case which led to the Gujarat riots of 2002, and the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case in which Shah was at one time accused.

&nbsp;(With inputs from PTI)

The government on Wednesday alleged that CBI Director Alok Verma did not back up the allegations of corruption against his former second-in-command Rakesh Asthana.

The government on Wednesday alleged that CBI Director Alok Verma did not back up the allegations of corruption against his former second-in-command Rakesh Asthana. The allegations of corruption were levelled before Asthana was made Special Director of the CBI. Verma had at the time written to the Central Vigilance Commission, saying the bureau was investigating Asthana. Asthana later wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and the CVC alleging that Verma was guilty of corruption. A little later the CBI filed an FIR against Asthana. The government stepped in on Wednesday, sending both Verma and Asthana on leave. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said it was necessary to do so to maintain the credibility of the country's premier investigative agency. In its statement on Wednesday, the government said the CVC, on receipt of a complaint on August 24, 2018 containing various allegations against senior functionaries of the CBI, had served three notices under Section 11 of the CVC Act, 2003 on September 11 on the CBI director to produce files and documents before the commission on September 14. Various opportunities were given to produce such records and after several adjournments, the CBI assured the commission on September 24 of furnishing them within three weeks. "Despite repeated assurances and reminders, the Director, CBI, failed to furnish the records/files before the commission. The CVC has observed that Director, CBI, has not been cooperating in making available records/files sought by the commission relating to serious allegations," the statement read. The CVC has also observed that the CBI director has been non-cooperative, non-compliant with the requirements/directions and has created willful obstructions in the functioning of the commission which is a constitutional body. Asthana is thought of as being close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah. Asthana handled the Godhra train-burning case which led to the Gujarat riots of 2002, and the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case in which Shah was at one time accused. (With inputs from PTI)

Alok Verma did not back up allegations against Rakesh Asthana, says government

The Delhi High court on Tuesday refused to stay the FIR filed by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-arrests-its-own-deputy-sp-in-bribery-case-involving-its-special-director-172826">the CBI</a> against its own second-in-command Rakesh Asthana.&nbsp;

The court however added that no action can be taken against Asthana till Monday when CBI Director Alok Verma will have to respond to the allegations levelled by Asthana against Verma.&nbsp;

Both Verma and Asthana have accused each other of corruption.&nbsp;

Verma had accused Asthana — who is a Gujarat cadre officer — of corruption before he was appointed to the CBI. Verma pointed out the alleged corruption to the Central Vigilance Commission.&nbsp;

Asthana in turn wrote to the Central Vigilance Commission and the&nbsp;Cabinet Secretary <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-terms-allegations-against-its-director-alok-verma-as-false-and-malicious-172714">accusing Verma of corruption</a>.&nbsp;

A little later, the CBI filed the FIR against Asthana. Asthana is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 5 crore to let businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case.&nbsp;

"This is a case of illegal registration of FIR against CBI Spl Director (Asthana) based on a statement of an accused," Asthana's lawyer told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday.&nbsp;

"This matter is of great urgency. The person whose arrest was recommended by Asthana has now been made a complainant and based on his complaint, this FIR has been filed. Any investigation without proper permission will be illegal," Asthana's lawyer added.&nbsp;

The CBI counsel replied: "Charges very serious against the accused including that of bribery. Charges under prevention of corruption act along with criminal conspiracy. Charges of extortion and forgery will be added."&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Delhi High court on Tuesday refused to stay the FIR filed by the CBI against its own second-in-command Rakesh Asthana. The court however added that no action can be taken against Asthana till Monday when CBI Director Alok Verma will have to respond to the allegations levelled by Asthana against Verma.

The Delhi High court on Tuesday refused to stay the FIR filed by the CBI against its own second-in-command Rakesh Asthana. The court however added that no action can be taken against Asthana till Monday when CBI Director Alok Verma will have to respond to the allegations levelled by Asthana against Verma. Both Verma and Asthana have accused each other of corruption. Verma had accused Asthana — who is a Gujarat cadre officer — of corruption before he was appointed to the CBI. Verma pointed out the alleged corruption to the Central Vigilance Commission. Asthana in turn wrote to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Cabinet Secretary accusing Verma of corruption. A little later, the CBI filed the FIR against Asthana. Asthana is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs 5 crore to let businessman Satish Sana off the hook in the Moin Qureshi case. "This is a case of illegal registration of FIR against CBI Spl Director (Asthana) based on a statement of an accused," Asthana's lawyer told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. "This matter is of great urgency. The person whose arrest was recommended by Asthana has now been made a complainant and based on his complaint, this FIR has been filed. Any investigation without proper permission will be illegal," Asthana's lawyer added. The CBI counsel replied: "Charges very serious against the accused including that of bribery. Charges under prevention of corruption act along with criminal conspiracy. Charges of extortion and forgery will be added."

Delhi High Court refuses to stay FIR filed by CBI against CBI's 2nd-in-command

In an unprecedented move, the CBI has booked its second in command, Rakesh Asthana, on the allegations of receiving bribe from an accused probed by him in a case linked to meat exporter Moin Qureshi -- a charge levelled by the officer on CBI Director Alok Verma in his complaint to the Cabinet Secretary two months ago.

The CBI registered the case -- FIR RC 13(A) of 2018 -- against CBI Special Director Asthana on October 15 on the basis of a complaint from Satish Sana, facing probe in the 2017 case allegedly involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, alleging the officer had allegedly helped him to get a clean chit.

The CBI has also arrested Manoj Prasad, believed to be a middleman, when he returned from Dubai on October 16.

The agency has, however, maintained a silence on the issue.

It is alleged by Sana that Prasad and his brother Somesh had taken money to arrange clean chit to him.&nbsp;

Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Asthana, who is heading the Special Investigating Team handling crucial cases such as AgustaWestland chopper scam and loan fraud by business tycoon Vijay Mallya. The team is also probing the Moin Qureshi case.

Asthana in an exhaustive letter to the Cabinet Secretary on August 24 had given a list of 10 instances of alleged corruption by Verma in which it was alleged that Sana paid the CBI chief Rs 2 crore to get clean chit in the case, government sources said.

This complaint was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission which is probing the matter, they said.

Asthana has again written to the Central Vigilance Commissioner on October 19 -- four days after the FIR was registered -- informing him that he wanted to arrest and interrogate Sana for which a proposal was sent to the Director on September 20, 2018, they said.

In the letter, he has also referred to his communication to Cabinet Secretary on August 24 in which details of alleged irregularities against the Director were given.

He said the Director allegedly held the file for nearly four days and marked to the Director of Prosecution (DoP) on September 24, 2018 who demanded all evidence available on record, the sources said.

It was the team under Asthana which had opened a lookout circular against Sana who attempted to flee the country but could not because of the preemptive action, they said.

Asthana has said that the file was again placed before the Director on October 3 with answers to the queries raised by the DoP but it has not been returned till date, the sources said.

Sana was questioned by the SIT on October 1, 2018 where he stated that he had met a politician, who after meeting Verma, had assured him that his name would be cleared from the case, they said citing submissions of Asthana.

In an unprecedented move, the CBI has booked its second in command, Rakesh Asthana, on the allegations of receiving bribe from an accused probed by him in a case linked to meat exporter Moin Qureshi -- a charge levelled by the officer on CBI Director Alok Verma in his complaint to the Cabinet Secretary two months ago.

In an unprecedented move, the CBI has booked its second in command, Rakesh Asthana, on the allegations of receiving bribe from an accused probed by him in a case linked to meat exporter Moin Qureshi -- a charge levelled by the officer on CBI Director Alok Verma in his complaint to the Cabinet Secretary two months ago. The CBI registered the case -- FIR RC 13(A) of 2018 -- against CBI Special Director Asthana on October 15 on the basis of a complaint from Satish Sana, facing probe in the 2017 case allegedly involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, alleging the officer had allegedly helped him to get a clean chit. The CBI has also arrested Manoj Prasad, believed to be a middleman, when he returned from Dubai on October 16. The agency has, however, maintained a silence on the issue. It is alleged by Sana that Prasad and his brother Somesh had taken money to arrange clean chit to him. Gujarat-cadre IPS officer Asthana, who is heading the Special Investigating Team handling crucial cases such as AgustaWestland chopper scam and loan fraud by business tycoon Vijay Mallya. The team is also probing the Moin Qureshi case. Asthana in an exhaustive letter to the Cabinet Secretary on August 24 had given a list of 10 instances of alleged corruption by Verma in which it was alleged that Sana paid the CBI chief Rs 2 crore to get clean chit in the case, government sources said. This complaint was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission which is probing the matter, they said. Asthana has again written to the Central Vigilance Commissioner on October 19 -- four days after the FIR was registered -- informing him that he wanted to arrest and interrogate Sana for which a proposal was sent to the Director on September 20, 2018, they said. In the letter, he has also referred to his communication to Cabinet Secretary on August 24 in which details of alleged irregularities against the Director were given. He said the Director allegedly held the file for nearly four days and marked to the Director of Prosecution (DoP) on September 24, 2018 who demanded all evidence available on record, the sources said. It was the team under Asthana which had opened a lookout circular against Sana who attempted to flee the country but could not because of the preemptive action, they said. Asthana has said that the file was again placed before the Director on October 3 with answers to the queries raised by the DoP but it has not been returned till date, the sources said. Sana was questioned by the SIT on October 1, 2018 where he stated that he had met a politician, who after meeting Verma, had assured him that his name would be cleared from the case, they said citing submissions of Asthana.

CBI books case against Rakesh Asthana — he is the agency's second-in-command

rakesh-asthana

Rakesh Asthana, News on Rakesh Asthana, stories on Rakesh Asthana, articles on Rakesh Asthana, Rakesh Asthana stories at Wion, Rakesh Asthana news, Rakesh Asthana latest news

rakesh asthana