After quashing the CVC appointment, the Supreme Court, in a successive blow to the Centre, questioned its action in transferring three officers of the directorate of enforcement probing the black money trail, and asked the government why it should not go in for “custodial interrogation” of those black account holders whose names were known to it.
Seeking the government’s response on three specific points by next Tuesday, a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar, seized of the black money case, said the government’s actions so far had several “twists and turns” as its response lacked a clearcut stand.
The sharp comments came from the bench after senior advocate Anil Diwan, arguing a PIL on black money, pointed out from the government’s latest affidavit of February 9 several contradictions into the probe against Pune-based stud farm owner Hasan Ali Khan, who allegedly has black accounts worth $8 billion and on action against 26 other Indians mentioned in a list provided to the court in sealed cover, which had been obtained from Germany.
“There is a complete about-turn on the information from the German authorities. The government says it is not provided under the double taxation avoidance treaty though earlier it said all information had to come through the DTA,” Mr Diwan said.
Agreeing with Mr Diwan, Justice Reddy, heading the bench, said: “You are saying U-turn, but there are many twists and turns in this matter.” The exasperated bench pointed to the government law officers the double standards which the government was following for high-profile moneyed people and other ordinary citizens in enforcing the law. “There are instances when minor offenders are shot for violating Section 144 CrPC (prohibitory orders), but you don’t take any action against these people. We are very sorry. All these people are now free,” the bench remarked, expressing its dismay.
As solicitor-general Gopal Subramaniam tried to defend the government’s stand on the issue, the bench brushed it aside, saying: “What the hell is going on in this country?” This was an apparent reference to the Centre’s double standards in enforcing the law.
The S-G explained that the first letter to the German authorities was sent outside the DTA, but when they insisted on proceeding within the treaty, the entire subsequent correspondence was within the DTA.
But not much impressed with the government’s stand on either issue — the probe against Hasan Ali Khan and the other 26 Indians — the bench asked for a clear assurance from the Centre on placing all three ED officers back in their position, considering custodial interrogation of all those whose names were furnished to the court and interrogation of these persons under an officer appointed by the court.
“We are not passing any order, but you (government) consider these aspects with all sincerity,” the bench told the S-G while adjourning the hearing till Tuesday to enable the government to come back with a clear response on these three aspects.
During the arguments which lasted over two hours, the S-G said the government had advised the relevant authorities to proceed with prosecution of those whose names were given in sealed cover to the court, and once the prosecution starts their names would become public automatically.
As the court asked if the government was looking into the entire issue with only the tax angle in mind or with a “comprehensive angle”, including criminal action, the S-G said: “We are looking at it with a comprehensive angle.”
But Mr Diwan, appearing for Mr Ram Jethmalani, who filed the PIL on the black money issue, questioned the government’s stand on withholding names till launch of the prosecution. “Why wait for disclosure till the prosecution? It will take a long time. What is the problem in disclosure right now?” he asked.