Verma’s petition argues that he cannot be stripped of his powers this way as he has a fixed tenure of two years, which is meant to ensure the CBI’s independence. Even if such action can be taken against him, he argues that only a high-powered committee with the same composition as the one that appointed him – Prime Minister, leader of Opposition (or leader of largest party in Opposition) and Chief Justice of India – can divest him of his powers. This view has been echoed by lawyers like senior advocate Prashant Bhushan (who is expected to file a PIL on this issue as well) and members of the Opposition like Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who have alleged that the government is acting in bad faith.

THE GOVERNMENT’S ARGUMENT

At the same time, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley hit back at these claims, arguing that the decision to send Verma and Asthana on leave was “in accordance with the highest standards of fairness”. The government has also issued a press release in which they have argued that Verma had not been cooperating with the CVC, asserted that the Centre and the CVC have powers which allow them to take action like this against the CBI Director, and said this state of affairs would continue till the CVC completed an inquiry into the matter.

WHO HAS GOT IT RIGHT?

The short answer is that we cannot be certain just yet, but Verma’s case should just about edge it. Yes, the CVC and the Centre do have powers of superintendence over the CBI as an agency, but this doesn’t change the fact that the law provides safeguards for the post of CBI Director, which cannot be bypassed so easily. While we wait for the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issue, here’s what you need to know about the law regarding all of this:

ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THESE SAFEGUARDS?

The Centre could potentially argue that they have only divested Verma of his powers on a temporary basis and so he has not been transferred or removed from his post. However, divesting him of all his powers and functions is effectively a removal from his post, or a transfer, regardless of whether this is an interim measure or not. It is difficult to see the Supreme Court accepting such a workaround by the government, as it would defeat the entire purpose of the law on this point. Even if the government were able to successfully argue that these safeguards don’t apply to the action taken against Verma, they will run into another stumbling block: the rules on suspension of a public servant. Even though the orders passed by the CVC and the Department of Personnel & Training against Verma do not use the term suspend/suspension, there can be little doubt that the orders amount to a suspension. The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 govern Verma’s service, including when he can be suspended. According to Rule 10, a public servant can be suspended by: their “appointing authority”; or an authority to which their appointing authority is subordinate; or an authority empowered by the President to discipline them or suspend them.

ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD

Members Only

Did the Govt Overstep in Acting Against CBI Director Alok Verma?

What will be the issues before the Supreme Court when it hears the matter on 26 October?

Vakasha Sachdev

Updated: 24 Oct 2018, 10:41 PM IST

Opinion

Small

Medium

Large

In an unprecedented move, CBI Director Alok Verma was divested of his functions, powers and duties by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the central government on Tuesday, 23 October.

Verma approached the Supreme Court on the morning of Wednesday, 24 October, to raise objections to the action against him, and Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi agreed to list it for hearing on Friday, 26 October.

But does Verma have any grounds to challenge any of this?

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: CBI Corruption Allegations Rakesh Asthana

Published: 24 Oct 2018, 2:56 PM IST