SC stays CBI probe against Uttarakhand CM over alleged corruption charges; issues notice

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a CBI probe initiated against Uttarakhand chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat over alleged corruption charges.
Attorney General KK Venugopal claimed that the the probe “destabilised” an “elected” government and led to a “clamour” for his resignation from the office.

A three-judge bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan also issued formal notices to the state government and the journalist who had accused Rawat. The high court had on Tuesday directed the CBI to conduct the probe.

The AG raised several questions on law over the high court ruling. He asked whether the high court could have suo motu ordered such an investigation against an “elected representative” which would “result in destabilising a government”. The CM was not even a party to the case, said Venugopal.

According to the AG, the order was passed without any “notice” to the CM “behind his back” over “vague and indefinite” allegations. A writ court or a constitutional court can intervene to prevent a probe from being derailed, he argued.

“But can it order a probe, especially against politicians on grounds of alleged corruption? He said such powers lay strictly in the domain of the executive. An order by a writ court prejudices the accused. The high court is wrong in law,” he said.

He urged the top court to step in and stay the high court order so that it wouldn’t “explode into a law and order issue”. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi dubbed the charges against the CM as “preposterous”.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the journalist who had levelled the charge against the CM. “I have some shocking facts to show the court,” he said. The charges date back to the CM’s stint as the BJP in-charge of Jharkhand.

The bench, which also included Justices R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, observed, “Can such an order be passed in a petition where neither any specific prayer for a probe is made nor state or CM made a party?”

The bench issued notices which have to be responded to in four weeks at the insistence of Sibal for a quick hearing.