PNB scam: Centre opposes parallel inquiry by courts

NEW DELHI: The Centre today vehemently opposed any “parallel inquiry” by the Supreme Court with regard to the probe into the Rs11,400-crore PNB scam and questioned the justification for asking investigating agencies to file sealed status reports of probes before courts.

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 16

The Centre today vehemently opposed any “parallel inquiry” by the Supreme Court with regard to the probe into the Rs11,400-crore PNB scam and questioned the justification for asking investigating agencies to file sealed status reports of probes before courts.

“In principle, what is the justification for any court, not only this court, to call upon the government and seek such reports as if a parallel inquiry is going on?,” Attorney General KK Venugopal told a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

“There can’t be a parallel inquiry and parallel monitoring by the courts,” Venugopal told the Bench which also included Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud. It would bring down the morale of the investigating agencies, he added.

The Bench was dealing with a PIL filed by advocate Vineet Dhandha demanding a court-monitored SIT probe into the scam allegedly involving Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and some top PNB officials. The petitioner also wanted deportation proceedings against Nirav Modi and a direction to the Finance Ministry to frame guidelines on the grant, disbursal and recovery of loans involving big amounts.

As Venugopal said 19 persons, including eight public servants, had been arrested in the case so far, the CJI said, “Why don’t you file a status report in a sealed cover?” It was at this stage that Venugopal questioned the justification of private parties coming to courts even before the probe had started. “There can’t be a parallel monitoring. It affects the morale of investigators.”

The Bench posted the matter for hearing on April 9 after the petitioner’s counsel alleged that the Attorney General had not read the file. The Bench objected to the language used by the petitioner’s counsel for the Attorney General. “The Attorney General holds a constitutional post. Why should we ask him whether he has read it or not. Language, in this court, has to decorous and absolutely appropriate,” the CJI said.

During the hearing, Venugopal said courts should not entertain such petitions unless some wrongdoing by the agencies was highlighted by the petitioner, he said.