A sharp conflict emerged between the Centre and the CBI in the Supreme Court on investigating the alleged role of home minister P. Chidambaram in the 2G scam as finance minister in UPA-I with the government stating that trial court could order the probe if required but the agency emphatically objecting to it
saying the issue had been considered during probe against former communications minister A. Raja and the issue need not be reopened.
There was a virtual clash between CBI counsel K.K. Venugopal and Centre’s lawyer P.P. Rao on the question whether the trial court could order further probe in the matter with regard to Mr Chidambaram’s role with the agency lawyer saying “no body can put in our (CBI) mouth what we should do.”
Mr Venugopal told a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly that 15 documents placed before the apex court as well as trial judge by petitioner Subramanian Swamy was part of voluminous papers seized by the CBI after registration of FIR in 2009 and the March 25 note of finance ministry to the PMO, placed on record now was nothing but a chronology of the same documents, examined by the agency.
“We have considered all these documents... CBI is an autonomous and independent agency... no body can make a statement on behalf of us,” Mr Venugopal said interjecting while Centre’s counsel made a submission that the Supreme Court could not order the probe against Mr Chidambaram after filing of the chargesheet but the matter should be left to the trial judge.
“The new document (March 25 note) filed for the first time before this court (SC) will naturally be studied and considered by the CBI as usual and may be covered in the next status report. If the investigating agency fails to discharge its duty, the trial court can exercise its power under the provisions of CrPC,” Mr Rao said.
As Swamy had approached the trial court for probe against Mr Chidamabram, the trial judge “has the power to proceed against any person not name as an accused in the chargesheet,” the Centre’s counsel emphasised.
Mr Swamy, however, contested Mr Venugopal’s claim of probing all the documents supplied by him and said the January 30, 2008 meeting between Mr Chidambaram and Raja in which spectrum price was finally decided, was not available to the CBI.
Mr Swamy also claimed that records of the two other one-to-one meetings between Raja and Chidambaram and their joint meeting with PM Manmohan Singh apprise him about the January 30, 2008 decision were also not available to the CBI.