New Delhi: The Supreme Court yesterday stayed a Gauhati High Court order holding the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) unconstitutional after quashing the April 1, 1963 home ministry resolution setting up the agency under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
An apex court bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, while staying the high court order after a 19-minute-long hearing at the former’s residence, said: “We have to stay the order. You have read today’s newspapers. Two people accused in sensational cases are seeking stay of their trial. What will happen?”
The court’s observation came as counsel L S Chaudhary, appearing for Narendra Kumar, sought the dismissal of a petition as it was being filed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which is not a party to the proceedings before the high court.
The court said: “We can’t dismiss it... CBI too is filing a petition challenging the high court order. We are not rejecting your objections. You file your objections. Your objections will be considered at an appropriate time.”
“We want to know whether you read today’s newspapers. Within a day, two of the accused in sensational cases, they prayed for stay of the trial,” the court told Chaudhary.
The order came after Attorney General G E Vahanvati faulted the high court verdict, saying the court “asked wrong questions, preceded on wrong premises and gave wrong answers”.
The attorney general told the court that the “order has far-reaching consequences. It has been passed on a completely wrong premise”.
“They (the high court) proceeded on the basis that the source for setting up the CBI was not there in the statute. And that it was done by a mere executive order.”
As the apex court asked the attorney general to point to the portion of judgment they are objecting to, Vahanvati said: “Only two reasons are given (by the high court), that you have not mentioned the DSPE Act. Non-mention or even wrong mentioning of a provision does not invalidate it (CBI) as long as there is a legislation.”
At this, Chief Justice Sathasivam said: “The resolution (April 1, 1963) very unfortunately did not notice it (Section 2 of DSPE Act, 1946). But it is there in the Act. We take it that there is a mention in section 2.”
The ministry of personnel and training, the CBI’s administrative ministry, moved the court challenging the high court order and seeking stay of its operation.
The government last morning filed a petition challenging the high court order and seeking an ex-parte stay. The government sought an urgent hearing of the matter.
IANS
