Petition by Maharashtra government an attempt to scuttle probe against Anil Deshmukh, CBI tells HC

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while opposing the petition by the Maharashtra government seeking constitution of a SIT, to probe the corruption allegations against former home minister Anil Deshmukh, has informed the Bombay high court that the petition was an attempt by the state to scuttle the central agency’s investigation.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while opposing the petition by the Maharashtra government seeking constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) headed by a retired judge, to probe the corruption allegations levelled by the former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, against former home minister Anil Deshmukh, has informed the Bombay high court (HC) that the petition was an attempt by the state to scuttle the central agency’s investigation.

While commencing arguments on behalf of CBI, additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi submitted that the current petition by the Maharashtra government and all previous petitions filed by it were intended to derail the investigation in Anil Deshmukh case by the CBI. (Satish Bate/HT PHOTO)

CBI submitted that the objection raised by the state government to the agency’s probe, on the ground of Subodh Jaiswal, director of CBI, being part of the police decision-making machinery when the alleged corrupt acts took place, was taken belatedly, as the objection was not raised in the rejected petitions filed in the HC and Supreme Court.

Earlier, the state concluded its arguments by submitting that as chief secretary Sitaram Kunte and director general of police (DGP) Sanjay Pandey were state officers, it had filed the petition under parens patriae jurisdiction. Parens patriae is a doctrine that gives authority to the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

The division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Sarang Kotwal, while hearing the petition filed by the state was informed by senior counsel Darius Khambatta that the April 5 order of the HC had directed the central agency to conduct a preliminary probe into the allegations by Singh as the Mumbai Police could not conduct an impartial probe as Deshmukh was heading it.

“Present director of CBI was the then DGP and is party signatory to all police establishment board (PEB) meetings. If CBI case is that it’s all meetings are irrelevant and decisions were taken by the home minister, he (Jaiswal) is important witness, as he signed on every minute, based on which, the decisions were taken,” said Khambatta. Hence, in light of the HC order for impartial probe urged constitution of SIT.

While commencing arguments on behalf of CBI, additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi submitted that the current petition by the state and all previous petitions filed by it were intended to derail the investigation by the CBI.

Lekhi submitted that if the state was intending to initiate proceedings and probe the allegations by Singh, it would have done so immediately. However, it neither took cognisance of Singh’s complaint to the chief minister nor did they do anything based on the complaint by Dr Jayshri Patil, which showed that the state had no intention to take action against the wrongdoers.

Lekhi said that the April 5 order of HC had directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

He further submitted that the apprehension cast by the state on the CBI probe as Jaiswal was the director of CBI was raised belatedly, which also goes to show that the state was trying to scuttle the investigation and shield the wrongdoers. “They did not take this plea because it is a make-believe plea. The state has a one-point agenda to derail probe and is now targeting the director,” said Lekhi, adding that none of the reports directly or indirectly implicated the former director-general. He added that the conduct of the state was incriminating and showed its reluctance to proceed in the matter.