Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the CVC and Central Government orders of 23 October 2018 divesting CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma of his functions and appointing an acting Director. Such disengagement required prior consent of the statutory committee. The Court directed committee consideration within one week and confined Verma, upon reinstatement, to ongoing routine functions pending its decision. It did not examine the merits of the grounds for divestment.
Issues
- Whether divesting the CBI Director of functions required the prior consent contemplated by Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act.
- Whether general appointment powers could sustain the impugned orders.
- What relief and interim limits should follow from the jurisdictional ruling.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4, 4A and 4B, as applicable, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946The statutory scheme protecting the Director’s tenure and institutional independence required prior committee consent for effective disengagement, not merely formal transfer. (¶¶ 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Sections 8 and 11, Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003Superintendence and inquiry powers invoked for the impugned action were read within the statutory safeguards governing the Director’s office. (¶¶ 22, 31, 35, 36)
- Sections 14, 15 and 16, General Clauses Act, 1897General powers were inapplicable because the DSPE Act disclosed a contrary intention concerning interference with the Director’s functioning. (¶ 37)
Held
- The legislation following Vineet Narain aimed to insulate the office from extraneous influence. Restricting transfer to a change of post would allow the safeguard to be defeated by other forms of disengagement having the same effect. The statutory committee must assess the compelling necessity for such interference. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Sections 14–16 of the General Clauses Act could not justify the action in the face of the contrary legislative intention in Sections 4A and 4B of the DSPE Act. (¶ 37)
- The jurisdictional ruling made consideration of the adequacy or relevance of the grounds for divestment unnecessary. The Court did not determine those merits. (¶¶ 31, 38)
- All three impugned orders were set aside. The committee was to consider the matter at the earliest and within a week. Upon reinstatement, Verma was confined to ongoing routine functions, without fresh initiatives having major policy or institutional implications, pending the committee’s decision permitting such action. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41)
- Consequential transfer orders challenged in interlocutory applications were not examined; the affected parties retained liberty to challenge them appropriately before the proper forum. (¶¶ 42, 43)
Result
Writ petitions and applications disposed of. Three orders of 23 October 2018 set aside; committee consideration within one week directed; reinstatement subject to specified interim functional limits.