SHASH2K2
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 5,711
- Likes
- 730
Clarify Salman Khurshid remark on 2G scam: SC to govt
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought to know if the Centre and the CBI were on the same page on the prosecution of the 2G scam accused, given law minister Salman Khurshid's reported statement that investor sentiment would be hurt if courts ordered the arrests of businesspersons.
A bench of Justices GS Singhvi and HL Dattu said the statement implied that the SC wanted to keep businessmen in jail and sought to know if the minister had indeed made the statement at a time when the CBI was opposing the bail pleas of corporate bigwigs jailed for their alleged role in the case.
The SC demanded a clarification from the government after additional solicitor general Harin Raval resumed arguments for the CBI, opposing the bail pleas of Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and DB group executive Vinod Goenka. The SC said, "When the court is in the midst of an important hearing in the scam, a newspaper reported a responsible minister's statement hinting as if the courts were interested in keeping businessmen behind bars."
Khurshid had said in an interview to a newspaper, "What will affect the functioning of the government is if the other institutions do not understand the kind of political economy we are faced with today; what is needed to encourage growth and investment? If you lock up top businessmen, will investment come?"
When Raval said that he represented the CBI, the bench said, "You are representing the CBI and to say the CBI is not part of the central government will be a misnomer. It may be the personal view of the minister. We are in the midst of a serious hearing in the 2G case and we are not interested in anything. You clarify your stand." The bench also asked Raval about a media report that the CBI may not oppose Kanimozhi's bail plea. Raval denied the report and said the agency was opposing the bail plea of Chandra and Goenka. He, however, sought time to discuss the issue with the minister and said he would get back to the court with a clarification. When the bench sought to know if the public relations department of the government had denied such misleading reports in the media, Raval argued that there was no change of circumstance from the time the apex court had denied bail to Kanimozhi and hence Chandra and Goenka deserved no relief.
But soon, the court referred to the minister's statement that the judiciary must understand the country's political economy and said there had been a spurt in economic crime. "Has the government made enough investment in investigating agencies to equip them to deal with such crime," it asked. Attempting to draw away from the rapid questioning over Khurshid's reported statement, Raval cited a March 2003 report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Justice VS Malimath to bolster his opposition to the bail pleas. But he faced another question from the bench: "Has the government accepted the Justice Malimath committee report?" It then asked Raval to get the Centre's response on this issue as well.
The Supreme Court's posers could push the government on the back foot. For, Justice Malimath had recommended radical measures, including five-fold increase in the existing judge strength, separation of investigation from law and order duty of police and many other measures which have not yet been implemented by the government.
Clarify Salman Khurshid remark on 2G scam: SC to govt - The Times of India
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought to know if the Centre and the CBI were on the same page on the prosecution of the 2G scam accused, given law minister Salman Khurshid's reported statement that investor sentiment would be hurt if courts ordered the arrests of businesspersons.
A bench of Justices GS Singhvi and HL Dattu said the statement implied that the SC wanted to keep businessmen in jail and sought to know if the minister had indeed made the statement at a time when the CBI was opposing the bail pleas of corporate bigwigs jailed for their alleged role in the case.
The SC demanded a clarification from the government after additional solicitor general Harin Raval resumed arguments for the CBI, opposing the bail pleas of Unitech MD Sanjay Chandra and DB group executive Vinod Goenka. The SC said, "When the court is in the midst of an important hearing in the scam, a newspaper reported a responsible minister's statement hinting as if the courts were interested in keeping businessmen behind bars."
Khurshid had said in an interview to a newspaper, "What will affect the functioning of the government is if the other institutions do not understand the kind of political economy we are faced with today; what is needed to encourage growth and investment? If you lock up top businessmen, will investment come?"
When Raval said that he represented the CBI, the bench said, "You are representing the CBI and to say the CBI is not part of the central government will be a misnomer. It may be the personal view of the minister. We are in the midst of a serious hearing in the 2G case and we are not interested in anything. You clarify your stand." The bench also asked Raval about a media report that the CBI may not oppose Kanimozhi's bail plea. Raval denied the report and said the agency was opposing the bail plea of Chandra and Goenka. He, however, sought time to discuss the issue with the minister and said he would get back to the court with a clarification. When the bench sought to know if the public relations department of the government had denied such misleading reports in the media, Raval argued that there was no change of circumstance from the time the apex court had denied bail to Kanimozhi and hence Chandra and Goenka deserved no relief.
But soon, the court referred to the minister's statement that the judiciary must understand the country's political economy and said there had been a spurt in economic crime. "Has the government made enough investment in investigating agencies to equip them to deal with such crime," it asked. Attempting to draw away from the rapid questioning over Khurshid's reported statement, Raval cited a March 2003 report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System headed by Justice VS Malimath to bolster his opposition to the bail pleas. But he faced another question from the bench: "Has the government accepted the Justice Malimath committee report?" It then asked Raval to get the Centre's response on this issue as well.
The Supreme Court's posers could push the government on the back foot. For, Justice Malimath had recommended radical measures, including five-fold increase in the existing judge strength, separation of investigation from law and order duty of police and many other measures which have not yet been implemented by the government.
Clarify Salman Khurshid remark on 2G scam: SC to govt - The Times of India
