[Breaking] Param Bir Singh v Anil Deshmukh: Bombay High Court reserves order on plea for CBI probe

The Bombay High Court today reserved its order in the plea filed by former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged malpractices of Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh [Param Bir Singh v. State of Maharashtra].

. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni reserved its order on the maintainability of the plea after hearing the parties till 6:40 pm on Wednesday

. When today's hearing began, Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni , appearing for the State, argued that the petitions filed by Singh and others were not maintainable.

. However, the Bench allowed Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani , appearing for Singh, to spell out the facts of the case.

. Highlighting that one of the trigger points was the transfers of officers, Nankani submitted that police officers were forced to work for their political masters.

"The first episode tells us about the pressure under which police officers work. It shows the entire police force is demoralised."

. The Bench then asked Nankani how it could direct for an investigation if there is no First Information Report (FIR) filed in the matter.

. Chief Justice Datta also queried as to how a PIL can be maintainable in a service matter.

"This plea mostly pertains to his transfer. If you file a writ we can consider that. But this PIL cannot be maintainable on that aspect. We can dismiss on that ground only, " the Court observed.

. Assuring the Court that Singh's PIL has nothing to do with the transfer order, Nankani went on to point out that the Home Minister himself invited the investigation.

. After Nankani read out a judgment, the Court asked,

"Are you saying that we can direct investigation when there is no consent by the State under Article 226? And the judgement you showed had an FIR. Where is the FIR here? Show us a judgment where there is no FIR and the investigation was transferred to CBI."

. When Nankani sought more time to pull out judgments on the issue, AG Kumbhakoni objected, saying that he had a judgment to counter Nankani's argument and thus the matter should not be adjourned. He went on to argue,

"He is vitally personally interested in both the prayers... He had filed a civil personal petition in Supreme Court. Whereas here he has filed a criminal PIL... In the body of the petition, he has placed personal grievances and is playing victim card."

. The AG went on to contend that the statements attributed to Deshmukh in Singh's letter were false.

. Nankani then said that courts sometimes take up letters they receive and hear them as petitions.

"Then you should have also sent a letter to the Court," was CJ Datta's response.

He went on to add,

"You remained silent when you found out that your boss was indulging in a crime. You failed your duty as a police officer if you did not register FIR."

. Referring to the Maharashtra government's move to constitute a committee to probe the allegations , Nankani then submitted,

"They have yesterday ordered a one judge commission... So they themselves think that there is a need for an enquiry... And all I saying is that it is not adequate..."

. CJ Datta insisted,

"The appropriate course of action should have been to file a complaint and then if there is no action then you approach the Court."

. When the Court asked Singh to approach a magistrate to register an FIR, Nankani said,

"But that will lead to lodging of FIR with police not the CBI. I want to avoid the Chakravyuh (labyrinth)."

The Chief Justice replied,

"You being a senior officer cannot escape the Chakravyuh. Are you saying that you are above the law and the law is only applicable to the lay citizens?"

. During the post-lunch session, Advocate Subhash Jha appearing for another petitioner said,

"We are faced with an unprecedented situation where you cannot just believe that only the Home Minister is involved. I am sure there are others involved."

. He further stated that the Court should have taken suo motu cognizance in this case, given its magnitude.

. Advocate Alankar Kirpekar appearing for another petitioner chimed in stating the inquiry conducted will take away doubts from the minds of the public. He added, "I am not saying no one is guilty. One of them, Deshmukh or Singh has to be guilty."

. Nankani reiterated that he was seeking direct conversion of Singh's letter to the Chief Minister into a complaint to the CBI.

"I am seeking an inquiry not an investigation," he added.

. The Court then observed,

"You say that the Home Minister is involved, but God forbid if the Prime Minister is involved, then who will investigate? Some superpower will come from outside? Who is CBI under?"

. As the parties continued to cite judgments in favour of the their arguments, the Bench made it clear that it would not rise until the case diary reached the High Court.

. After hearing counsel for the other petitioners and rejoinder submissions by Nankani and AG Kumbhakoni, the Court reserved its order.

. Three PILs and two writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court on same issue over the past couple of weeks.

. The lead petition was filed by Singh himself , after the Supreme Court asked him to first approach the High Court.

Apart from seeking a CBI probe into the actions of Deshmukh, Singh has also prayed for appropriate directions to ensure that transfer/posting of police officials is not done on any consideration of pecuniary benefits to any politician.

. Another petition was filed by Ghanshyam Upadhyay, seeking the formation of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) which includes a member each from agencies including the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to look into the extortion charges alleged by Param Bir Singh.

. Dr. Jaishri Patil also filed a plea seeking a probe by the CBI or any other independent agency into the allegations of malpractices alleged by Singh against Deshmukh.

. A similar plea was also filed by one Hemant Baburao Patil seeking directions to an "independent agency" under the supervision of the High Court to register an FIR against Sachin Waze and his associates for alleged extortion.

. A fifth petition was filed by a Chartered Accountant, Mohan Prabhakar Bhide, who sought the constitution of a Special Committee headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or High Court to carry out an investigation into the allegations raised against the State Home Minister.

.Fifth petition filed before Bombay High Court on Param Bir Singh v. Anil Deshmukh tussle; Chartered Accountant seeks judicial inquiry. [Read order here]

. [Read a detailed account of the hearing here]

[Breaking] Param Bir Singh v Anil Deshmukh: Bombay High Court reserves order on plea for CBI probe

Neha Joshi

Related Stories