No Likelihood Of Bias Just Because CBI Director Is Ex-DGP : Bombay High Court Rejects Maharashtra's Plea For SIT In Anil Deshmukh Case

The court observed this while dismissing Maharashtra Government's petition to hand over CBI's anti-corruption probe against former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh to a court-monitored SIT.

The state had objected to the CBI's probe with Jaiswal at the helm. It contended that since Jaiwal was part of both police establishment boards and oversaw transfers and posting, he would be a witness if not a potential accused. Therefore is a likelihood of bias as a general principle, and the probe can't be impartial.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal dismissed the Maharashtra Government's contention observing that the state had created the apprehension of bias.

"We have examined the role of Respondent No.2(Jaiswal) both, as a DGP of Maharashtra and Director of CBI and also the functions of the posts and have held that there is no such reasonable apprehension (of bias) but merely a created one," the bench observed.

After perusal of CBI's investigation papers, the court observed that the Maharashtra Government's accusations of a malafide investigation are "unwarranted."

"Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Petitioner that because Subodh Kumar Jaiswal is now the director of CBI, Respondent CBI is not competent to carry on with the investigation."

The court also said there was no conflict of interest even if Jaiswal was once Maharashtra's DGP as his stand was always to conduct an inquiry into transfers and postings.

As CBI Director, Nothing to Show Jaiswal Responsible for Directing Investigation

The state submitted that once Jaiswal became the CBI director, he became responsible for directing the investigation as the officials would inform him about important matters.

The court referred to the CBI's crime manual to hold that the Director would have only "general administrative control," including the power to verify complaints regarding registration of cases received in respect of high ranking persons.

Also the CBI investigation was based on the Bombay High Court's April 5 order. "Therefore, there is nothing in the manner which shows that upon becoming the Director of CBI, Jaiswal became responsible for [present] investigation."

Distinction Between Jaiswal and CS Sitaram Kunte's Conduct

It distinguished between then Maharashtra DGP Jaiswal's conduct compared to then Addl Chief Secretary (Home) Sitaram Kunte's conduct when IPS officer Rashmi Shukla's controversial report on police-politician nexus in postings was placed before them.

The court noted that while Jaiswal recommended a comprehensive inquiry into Shukla report and sought for the Chief Minister to be informed, Kunte wrote back to him merely advising counselling for such police officers, asking them to avoid contact with brokers.

"The point is that in the matter of transfer of police officers, the initial response of Respondent No.5 and the Petitioner was to block any further scrutiny by downplaying the gravity. This response of the Home Secretary(Kunte) of the Petitioner (State) is part of the overall conduct of the Petitioner, which we have taken cognizance of."

It may be noted that the state approached the Bombay High Court after CBI issued summons to DGP Sanjay Pandey and Kunte, now the Chief Secretary. "We fail to understand how requesting to participate in the investigation would amount to harassment of these two officers," the court noted.

State's Attempt To Scuttle Investigation

The bench said that state's petition is nothing but an extension of their stand to scuttle the investigation concerning the ex-home minister as displayed right from the inception as observed by the court.

The bench said it was their duty to ensure that the relief sought by a party was not for any colourable purpose.

"The Court exercising jurisdiction rooted in equitable considerations has to ascertain whether the prayer sought is bonafide and in the public interest and that it is not for some other colourable purpose"

"Considering the manner in which the petitioner has conducted itself in relation to this FIR and the way in which the Petition is presented assuming locus, we are not satisfied that the prayer of the Petitioner for recalling investigation from the Respondent CBI to itself is bonafide," the bench observed.