Supreme Court slams vigilance on bargate
The court pointed out that the Advocate-General’s was a constitutional position
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) has questioned the government decision to seek the advice of Supreme Court lawyers on the bar bribe case.
The court asked the Vigilance to clarify as to why it sought the advice of Mr L. Nageshwara Rao and Mr Mohan bypassing the Advocate-General and the Director-General of Prosecutions.
The court was hearing the petitions, including that by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) state president Sarah Joseph, against the decision to close the case against Finance Minister K.M. Mani.
“Who directed the Vigilance to seek legal advice?” the court asked. Since the status report filed by the investigating officer had recommended prosecution proceedings against Mr Mani and the final report had cited that there was no evidence to prosecute the minister, the court sought to know whether there was any continuing probe in the intervening period.
The court pointed out that the Advocate-General’s was a constitutional position. The AG’s advice could have been sought in such matters. It directed the Vigilance to go through the case diary and other materials in detail and file a reply.
Meanwhile, Bar Hotel Association working president Biju Ramesh and Opposition Leader V.S. Achuthanandan have sought two days’ time to file their plaints.
The case has been posted for hearing on September 10. The investigating officer and Vigilance SP Sukesan had submitted a report suggesting there was enough evidence to prosecute Mr Mani.
However, after receiving the report, the Vigilance director chose to close the case. Vigilance sources had then stated that the investigation officer had himself admitted lapses in the probe in the same report.