NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear to the NGO, represented by activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, that his plea which had sought an SIT probe into alleged recovery of documents by the I-T department in connection with raids on two business houses to come up with relevant material.
NGO Common Cause had moved the court seeking a SIT probe into the evidence gathered against the Sahara Group and the Aditya Birla Group regarding bribing of politicians including PM Narendra Modi when he was Gujarat CM. The application was filed in the 2015 case pertaining to the appointments of Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioner.
The hearing saw a heated exchange of words between Bhushan and the Bench headed by designated Chief Justice of India Justice J S Khehar who said that, “Material produced was not satisfactory and more credible material will have to be brought on record if the petitioner wants us to continue hearing the case.” The Bench said there was difficulty in going into the petition which deals with high functionaries as it was not supported by even the smallest evidence.
During the hearing, Bhushan informed the bench that he has received an appraisal report which contains an analysis by the Income Tax Department on all the materials seized during the raids in 2013-14, and said the evidence clearly pointed to the bribing of an official of the Department of Revenue Intelligence and sought some time to file the details on affidavit.
However, the bench declined Bhushan’s request of granting more time and said, “We had fixed a specific date for the hearing after, on the last date of hearing, Shanti Bhushan had stated that additional documents will be filed by today. This is very abnormal. How will a Constitutional authority function?”
Bhushan then went on to demand two more weeks to file an affidavit. When he said the court was forcing him to bring the relevant material within two days, the bench said, “Yes, it is not unreasonable as you are just casting aspersions.”
An agitated Bhushan refuted the claim, after which the Bench asked him to lower his pitch and said, “we have a settled proposition that you have to give us material”. When Bhushan questioned the haste in which the court wanted to deal with the matter, the bench told him that it is very difficult for a person to function against whom aspersions are made. The Bench allowed Bhushan one more day to file additional material, and slated the hearing for December 16, saying , “It is a matter of burning midnight oil for one night. Finish it today and file it tomorrow. We will hear it day after.”