More than 10 days after the single-member committee was appointed under retired justice KU Chandiwal to probe the allegations levelled against former home minister Anil Deshmukh, the investigation is yet to begin.
A section of the state leadership and legal experts feel that the probe by the committee has become redundant after the Bombay high court (HC) on March 5 ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the allegations. However, the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government is likely to go ahead with the probe by the committee, constituted on March 30, to investigate into the allegations of corrupt malpractices by former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh.
The government has been told that the findings of the panel would have limited legal standings as the CBI probe would have wider scope. “There are instances of parallel investigation by such committees in the past too. We also have checked with justice Chandiwal if he still wishes to continue with the probe after the HC order. The orders related to the remuneration, office space and other logistical assistance will soon be issued,” said an official from Mantralaya.
Former advocate general Shreehari Aney said the Chandiwal committee will no more serve its purpose. “The CBI inquiry does not stop government from going ahead with the probe by the committee but it has become redundant in law as CBI’s scope of investigation is much larger than that of the committee. CBI’s findings would result in prosecution, whereas the Chandiwal committee’s findings are just fact findings in nature. It would be ultimately the prerogative of the state whether to accept it or make it public. I fear in the given case, one might be confronted with two different reports on fact,” said Aney.
{{/usCountry}}Former advocate general Shreehari Aney said the Chandiwal committee will no more serve its purpose. “The CBI inquiry does not stop government from going ahead with the probe by the committee but it has become redundant in law as CBI’s scope of investigation is much larger than that of the committee. CBI’s findings would result in prosecution, whereas the Chandiwal committee’s findings are just fact findings in nature. It would be ultimately the prerogative of the state whether to accept it or make it public. I fear in the given case, one might be confronted with two different reports on fact,” said Aney.
{{/usCountry}}