CBI Director Ranjit Sinha, in a letter to retired IPS officer Prakash Singh, has denied allegations of working for the interests of the ruling party in cases against Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh and BSP supremo Mayawati and in the Ishrat Jehan fake encounter case and the railway scam.
Sinha’s letter, details of which are with Express, is in response to Prakash Singh’s letter to the CVC and CBI director on August 30 in which the former BSF director alleged that there was ruling party’s interference in many cases being investigating by the CBI.
“The unmistakable impression one gets is that the CBI interest in a particular case is directly proportional to the ruling party’s interest,” Prakash Singh had said in his letter. Following Singh’s letter, the CVC had sought a response from the CBI in the matter.
The CBI chief’s letter to Prakash Singh and the CVC states: “Only selected politically sensitive cases have been referred in the letter by Mr. Prakash Singh. Whereas, the CBI is seized of a number of cases of public importance, in respect of which no controversy has been generated.” Referring to the disproportionate assets case against Mulayam Singh, the CBI chief’s letter states that, “the CBI is in the process of complying with the orders of the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible, and efforts have been made to ensure a fair, just and professional enquiry. Since the case is in scrutiny and final action, details cannot be disclosed.”
On the disproportionate assets case against Mayawati, the letter states, “the Supreme Court passed the final order on August 8, and a certified copy was received in early September. Therefore, any further course of action can only be taken after perusal of the court order. The agency is also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and past developments.”
In the Railway bribery case, which claimed the chair of former Railway Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal, the CBI has defended its decision of not booking Bansal. “According to legal norms, mere proximity, without active involvement with an accused does not constitute a piece of evidence, suggesting criminality,” the CBI states in the letter.
Ishrat Jehan Case
While referring to the Ishrat Jehan case, the CBI said that the case was referred to it by Gujarat High Court and the mandate was to get to the bottom of the fake encounter. The court is also monitoring the investigation on a regular basis.
In the course of the investigation, regular meetings have been taken place between the Intelligence Bureau, CBI and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The general consensus was that the guilty should be brought before the law. “So it is rather unfortunate to make a comment that we have turned from caged parrot to vulture in investigating the case,” the letter states.