'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion'
High Court ordered that probe against Mani can continue while coming down heavily on the minister.Giving its verdict, the court said 'it found no reason to interfere with the findings of facts by Vigilance court'.
The court was considering a review petition filed by the Vigilance Department challenging a Vigilance Court's verdict for further probe in the bar bribery case.
Criticising Mani in strong language, the court stated that it is up to Mani's conscience to decide whether he wants to continue as a minister.
"People should not doubt the minister. Investigation into charges against him should be an honest one. Why should he fear the investigation? Caesar's wife must be above suspicion," the court added, suggesting that a public servant must not even be suspected of wrongdoing.
The courtroom witnessed dramatic scenes as the bench had to withdraw an observation that suggested there is evidence that Mani took bribe.
The court withdrew the mention after Advocate General (AG) K.P. Dandapani and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the government, objected to the court's observation.
After their objection, arguments continued in the case.
While giving out its verdict in the review petition filed by the Vigilance Department in the case, the High Court criticised Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) Director Vinson M. Paul for 'functioning mechanically' in the probe.
The bench also said that it found no fault in Vigilance court's order for further probe in the case against Kerala Finance Minister K.M. Mani.
The Vigilance Court has the power to seek and scrutinise the factual report, the bench added.
The VACB director can intervene in an ongoing probe and make suggestions to the Investigating Officer (IO), the High Court observed.
The court made the observation as it was considering the review petition challenging the order of further probe into charges against K.M. Mani in the bar bribery case.
Arguing for the government, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal said that Vigilance director is part of the investigation and has the right to take the final decision in an investigation.
However, Sibal added that though the Vigilance chief had the power to do so, he did not intervene in the probe and did not pass on any instructions to the SP R. Sukesan, the Investigating Officer in the bar bribery case. Sukesan prepared the final report, Sibal told the court.
'Vigilance chief has no right to correct report'
On the other hand, CPM leader V.S. Achuthanandan's lawyer argued that Vigilance Department has no authority to question court verdict.
Making an observation, the High Court bench said that according to the Vigilance manual, Vigilance chief has no power to make changes to the probe report prepared by an officer with the SP rank. The court added that the director has all rights to instruct his officers during the investigation.
The bench also said that Vigilance Director Vinson M. Paul 'did not consider Sukesan's findings in the case and took decision to close the case in his interest'.
Vigilance Department had filed the review petition against the Vigilance court verdict that ordered further probe in the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment