An act of vendetta: Jaiswal seeks dismissal of PIL challenging his appointment as CBI chief

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Subodh Kumar Jaiswal has claimed that the public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by former assistant commissioner of police (ACP) Rajendra Trivedi, challenging his appointment as the head of the central agency in 2021, is an act of vendetta

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Subodh Kumar Jaiswal has claimed that the public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by former assistant commissioner of police (ACP) Rajendra Trivedi, challenging his appointment as the head of the central agency in 2021, is an act of vendetta.

Subodh Kumar Jaiswal HT Archives

Jaiswal in his affidavit filed before the Bombay high court on Tuesday said the allegation that he was not eligible or competent to head the agency was a misuse of the PIL by the petitioner and hence, it should be dismissed.

On June 9, a division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Makarand Karnik, which was hearing the PIL filed by Trivedi through advocates Satish Talekar and Madhavi Ayyappan, had directed Jaiswal and the union home department to file their replies to the plea.

The HC has posted the matter for hearing on July 28.

Trivedi had contended that Jaiswal’s appointment was in contravention of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and sought directions to call for the record and proceedings of the committee which approved his name as a candidate in May 2021. His plea also referred to various posts held by Jaiswal before being appointed as CBI director and stated that he had never been part of any agency which investigated anti-corruption cases.

“The fact remains that respondent no. 3 [Jaiswal] was never attached to the anti-corruption wing of the police force, at any point of time. With the CBI being a premier anti-corruption agency, possession of experience in investigation of anti-corruption cases is a prerequisite for being appointed as the director of the agency. Even otherwise, there is a statutory requirement of possessing such an experience,” the petition said.

Trivedi also referred to the adverse observations by the Supreme Court and the trial court on Jaiswal’s probe in the Telgi scam and raised questions over Jaiswal’s integrity and, therefore, pending the hearing on the plea, he should be restrained from officiating as the CBI director.

In the affidavit filed in response to the PIL, Jaiswal said the CBI had ratified the investigation done by the special investigation team headed by him in the Telgi scam and the PIL was not an isolated incident of attempting to initiate malicious proceedings against him. Jaiswal further alleged that Trivedi was on a witch-hunt to malign his reputation with the “sole intention” of involving him in uncalled-for litigations.

Jaiswal also pointed to the departmental inquiry initiated by the state government against Trivedi in 2019 based on a report forwarded by the former. The affidavit said the report was received from Trivedi’s subordinates who had a grievance against the ACP. Jaiswal said that Trivedi, however, nursed a grudge against him for forwarding the report to the government and hence, the PIL was an attempt to get back at him.

The PIL was an abuse of process of law to harass him and tarnish his image and reputation and such a petition filed for settling a grudge was liable to be dismissed, the affidavit added.

Trivedi filed a rejoinder to Jaiswal’s affidavit and denied having any personal grudge against Jaiswal and said a calculated attempt was being made to mislead (the) court by twisting facts.