New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday directed that no coercive action be taken against people linked to the Punjab government by the CBI, which is probing allegations of corruption against high-ranking officials.
The order came on the Punjab government's plea seeking a stay on a high court direction to the CBI to probe corruption allegations against people linked to the state government and submit a report within two months.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale issued notice to the Centre, CBI, ED and others. "We are not staying the FIR. We are saying no coercive steps may be taken," the bench said.
Senior advocates Vikas Singh and Sidharth Luthra appeared for the Punjab government.
Last Monday, the state government moved the top court against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's direction on a petition filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf. The allegations include cash for transfers and cash for getting favourable policies.
The petitioner submitted that no action has been taken yet, even after the Enforcement Directorate sent communications to the Aam Aadmi Party government.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner submitted that no action has been taken yet, even after the Enforcement Directorate sent communications to the Aam Aadmi Party government.
{{/usCountry}}It was contended that the allegations warranted an independent investigation as it raised serious questions about the state government's functioning.
The high court also directed the Punjab Police and the government that all documents pertaining to the case be handed over to the CBI.
Assailing the high court's decision on various grounds, the Punjab government said the impugned judgment suffers from errors such as treating information shared under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as a direction that makes registration "inevitable", contrary to the 2022 decision of the apex court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case.
The plea said the high court's judgment directs registration of an FIR into decisions of public servants on transfers, tenders and policy without the previous approval mandated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and faults the bureau for not associating a serving officer whom it could not lawfully enquire into without such approval.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.