CBI Director Subodh Kumar Jaiswal has requisite experience, no pending court case against him: Central government to Bombay High Court

Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Subodh Kumar Jaiswal has enough experience dealing with anti-corruption cases and has no pending complaint or court case against him, the Central government told the Bombay High Court defending Jaiswal's appointment to the post..Jaiswal has handled anti-corruption cases including economic offences, white collar crime, corporate crimes and cases under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), an affidavit filed before the High Court by the under secretary of the Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances said.The government, therefore, sought dismissal of the public interest litigation petition filed by retired Assistant Commissioner of Maharashtra Police (ACP) Rajendrakumar Trivedi challenging Jaiswal's appointment as the director of the investigating agency. Trivedi has challenged continuation of Jaiswal as CBI chief on the ground that he does not possess experience in investigation of anti-corruption cases and has doubtful credibility.The Court had earlier issued notice in the matter..The counter affidavit at the outset stated that as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act), a superintendent of police at district level is empowered to register and investigate offences under the PCA.It stated that Jaiswal had served as superintendent in three districts, Commissioner of Mumbai Police (which is the biggest commissionerate of the country) and as the Director General of Maharashtra Police before he was made the CBI director.Additionally it was pointed out that as per the DSPE Act, anti-corruption cases are not limited to PCA cases, but also include economic offences, white collar crimes, corporate crimes, vigilance matters and so on.In view of this, it was erroneous for the petitioner to claim that Jaiswal did not have any experience in investigating and supervising anti-corruption cases..The reply filed by the under secretary of the Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances, also highlighted the legal provision for appointment of a CBI director.As per the same, a committee which monitors the appointments, considers all factors including the overall suitability based on seniority, integrity, experience in investigation and anti-corruption work, etc.The reply pointed out that service records as available with cadre controlling authority as well as vigilance clearance with reference to all the officers and belonging to the senior-most four batches of the Indian Police Service were placed before the Committee.From the records available, there was nothing to indicate any pending complaint or court case pending against Jaiswal.In view of these submissions, the government stated that the contentions raised in the PIL were devoid of merits, made on assumptions and, hence, was liable to be dismissed..Meanwhile, in response to the country, Trivedi has filed a rejoinder stating that the Central government could not have joined hands with CBI for the purpose of filing common affidavit as the agency was impleaded through its Director.The possibility of the same being influenced by Jaiswal or CBI cannot be ruled out, Trivedi said in his affidavit.It was expected of the Central government to adopt an impartial, non-partisan and detached approach in filing its reply; however, the same is filed almost on the lines of the affidavit filed by Jaiswal, Trivedi added..Trivedi also pointed out that in States like Maharashtra, there is a separate wing known as the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to which all the cases relating to corruption are assigned.The police officers entrusted with the work of anti-corruption cases form part of a special wing and regular police officers do not work on such cases.Trivedi urged that the Centre and CBI (through the affidavit) made every possible attempt to confuse the experience in the investigation and anti-corruption work with the experience in investigation of anti-corruption cases.