Maharashtra govt scared of probe into Vaze’s reinstatement, transfers of police: CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has contended that the issues pertaining to the reinstatement of assistant police inspector (API) Sachin Vaze and the report of former state intelligence commissioner Rashmi Shukla, which are included in its first information report (FIR) are relevant and in line with the directions of the April 5 Bombay high court (HC) order

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has contended that the issues pertaining to the reinstatement of assistant police inspector (API) Sachin Vaze and the report of former state intelligence commissioner Rashmi Shukla, which are included in its first information report (FIR) are relevant and in line with the directions of the April 5 Bombay high court (HC) order. CBI was arguing against the petition filed by the Maharashtra government for the removal of two unnumbered paragraphs from the FIR filed by the central agency on April 21 against ex-home minister Anil Deshmukh in corruption allegations.

HT Image

CBI also said that the state was scared of the investigation initiated by the Central agency over Vaze’s reinstatement and the issue of undue political influence during appointments and transfer of police officers raised by Shukla and hence filed the petition.

“This is an issue of corruption and on this issue, observation of this court would be relevant to find out the purpose and intent of HC order and what were the submissions,” argued additional solicitor general Anil Singh on behalf of CBI.

He further added CBI referred to the paragraphs of the HC order which stated that the issues of corruption, as pointed out by former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, against Deshmukh were serious and the allegations needed to be investigated thoroughly. CBI submitted that the HC order, while ordering the preliminary inquiry, also implied investigation into Vaze’s appointment and Deshmukh’s influence in getting him reinstated, and hence, the two issues were included in the FIR.

CBI concluded its arguments on Monday stating that in the light of the above submissions, the state was in contempt of the Supreme Court (SC) and HC order by refusing CBI access to the documents pertaining to Vaze’s reinstatement and the allegations made by Shukla.

The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, while hearing the petition filed by the state, was informed by its counsel, senior advocate Rafiq Dada, that the constitutional court which ordered the preliminary probe on April 5 had not looked into the issue of Vaze’s reinstatement or the issue of transfer or postings, though it was raised in the other public interest litigation (PIL) that were filed along with of Singh’s. The court had observed in its order that the issue of transfer or postings was to be dealt by another forum, and hence, the state was justified in seeking removal of parts of the FIR filed by CBI.

Dada reiterated that the April 5 order was only pertaining to advocate Jaishri Patil’s complaint to Malabar Hill police, but as the CBI was seeking beyond what was mandated by the court, the state had no option but to approach HC.

However, Singh submitted that there was a need to understand the purpose and intent of the HC order. The issues relating to why Vaze was reinstated after 15 years, why he was given special posting and why he was in contact with the home minister needed investigation. He added that CBI sought to investigate the issues because while dealing with the issue of corruption the two could not be segregated as they were part of the order.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who took over the arguments for CBI, submitted that the petition by the state was intended to dilute the mandate issued by a coordinate bench in PIL which was also upheld by SC. Mehta submitted that the state did not want the CBI to investigate two questions: how Sachin Vaze was reinstated after 15 years and if there was undue influence over posting of officers.

He stressed that as Vaze’s name was all over the petitions filed by Singh and Patil, the HC order had to be read in that context, and Vaze’s reinstatement had to be investigated. Mehta added that the state had filed a special leave petition in the Apex court against the April 5 order of HC, but it was turned down, and hence, the state was now seeking removal of the two paragraphs from the FIR only.

In light of this, Mehta submitted that the state was in contempt of SC and HC’s directions and concluded arguments for CBI.

Dada sought to dispute the concluding remarks of CBI which was allowed by the bench. The state will respond on Wednesday.