The Supreme court today reserved its verdict in the petitions filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Alok Verma and NGO Common Cause challenging the decision of the Central government to send Verma on leave..The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph..A slew of Senior Counsel appeared in the matter. Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman appeared for Alok Verma, while Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave represented Common Cause. Attorney General KK Venugopal appeared for Union of India, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). ASG PS Narasimha appeared for CBI..Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rajeev Dhavan and Kapil Sibal were also allowed to argue as officers of the court though they were appearing for Rakesh Asthana, AK Bassi and Mallikarjun Kharge respectively..SG Tushar Mehta’s arguments today were centered around the contention that an IPS officer will continue being governed by the All India Services Act and Police Rules even if he becomes a part of the CBI..“The question before Your Lordships is whether a person who is a member of IPS and eligible for being Director of CBI, cease to be outside the scope of All India Services Act. .The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act) does not conceive that a person eligible for being CBI Director will not be governed by Rules applicable to Police. A person continues to be part of IPS despite induction into CBI”, submitted Mehta..The idea behind the provisions in DSPE Act is to give the Director some permanence, Mehta told the Court..Mehta also made submissions on the scope of the word “transfer” in the present context. It was the contention of the petitioner that the order of the Centre to send Verma on leave amounted to transfer, and hence, could not be done without the approval of the Selection Committee..Mehta, however, contended that “transfer” would mean change in place of employment from one place to another and it would be a permanent act..It was also his argument that the power of superintendence of CVC under Section 8 of the CVC Act would extend to situations which are not laid down by the law..“Situations may arise when Legislature has not provided for a situation. The power of Centre in such cases is not taken away..Suppose an officer taking bribe is caught on camera and needs to be suspended immediately, then that power is retained by the Central government”, Mehta argued..ASG PS Narasimha, appearing for CBI, cited the Rules framed pursuant to All India Services Act. He argued that as per Rule 7 of the same, an officer may be transferred before the minimum prescribed tenure only on the recommendation of the Committee. However, the said condition is applicable only to transfer simpliciter, he said..Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing Rakesh Asthana, was then allowed to argue as an officer of the court. Thus, he was directed by the Bench to limit his submissions to arguments on law and not facts..Rohatgi contended that even if Section 4(2) of DSPE Act is not present, the Central government will retain power except with respect to three aspects – appointment, transfer, and minimum tenure of two years. Thus, suspension, departmental inquiry and dismissal would still lie within the sole domain of Centre, he said..After Rohatgi’s arguments, Fali Nariman and Dushyant Dave made rejoinder submissions..Nariman submitted that the DSPE Act was not an ordinary law but an “extraordinary piece of legislation”.“This is no ordinary Act, The genesis of this is in Vineet Narain. This legislation has an origin which no legislation has; This is an extraordinary law”, he said..He also rebutted the contentions by the AG and SG regarding the scope of the word “transfer”..“The word “transfer” here is not service jurisprudence transfer. Transfer includes divesting of functions and not just transfer from one place to another. When all the functions of my office are taken away, it is a transfer”, he argued..Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted that Parliament in fact went beyond the directions given by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain’s case with regard to the composition of the Selection Committee and included the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India in the same..“It was a novel law, a law within a law”, he said..It was also his argument that the power of superintendence of CVC over CBI under Section 8 of the CVC Act is limited to cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that the CVC does not have power of superintendence over the CBI Director..“CVC cannot have one standard for Mr. Asthana and another for Mr. Verma”, argued Dave..The government becomes functus officio after the appointment of Director under Section 4B, Dave contended while also citing the case of former Kerala DGP TP Senkumar, who was reinstated by the Supreme Court after the Kerala government had removed him before his fixed tenure was complete..Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan also made submissions before the Court reserved its verdict..Read a full account of today’s hearing here..Read the order below.