{"id":210316,"date":"2019-02-19T13:37:42","date_gmt":"2019-02-19T08:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=210316"},"modified":"2019-02-27T11:34:34","modified_gmt":"2019-02-27T06:04:34","slug":"no-interference-required-in-m-nageswara-raos-appointment-as-interim-cbi-director-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/19\/no-interference-required-in-m-nageswara-raos-appointment-as-interim-cbi-director-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"No interference required in M Nageshwar Rao’s appointment as interim CBI Director: SC [Full Report]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of Arun Mishra<\/strong> and Vineet Saran, JJ disposed of a plea challenging the appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao as the interim CBI Director and said no further interference is required as the relief has already been granted with the appointment of a full time CBI Director. It said:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIn case the due process has not been followed in the appointment, it is always open to any incumbent, if so advised, to question the appointment in accordance with law but not in the routine manner and undue haste as shown in the petition.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It was argued by the petitioner that the appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao as interim CBI Director was not made on the recommendations of the High-Powered Selection Committee. The committee was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao thereby rendering the appointment as illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI under Section\u00a04A\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Delhi\u00a0Special\u00a0Police Establishment\u00a0Act,\u00a01946.<\/p>\n

The Court, however, held that the decision of the committee under Section 4A that the Government was authorised to post a suitable officer as interim Director due to the vacancy caused by shifting of Mr. Alok Verma. Thus, the aforementioned submission was totally misconceived and petitioners have failed to verify the aforesaid facts and the petition has been filed in undue haste without verifying the\u00a0\u00a0 fact\u00a0\u00a0 whether\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 appointment\u00a0\u00a0 has\u00a0\u00a0 been\u00a0\u00a0 authorised\u00a0\u00a0 by\u00a0\u00a0 the Committee for appointment of Director constituted under section 4A of the DSPE Act.<\/p>\n

After advocate Prashant Bhushan made some\u00a0comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao, the Attorney General KK Venugopal and consecutively, the Union of India have filed\u00a0a contempt petition<\/a> in the Supreme Court. The Bench hence, issued notice to advocate Prashant Bhushan<\/a> and the said contempt petition will be heard separately.<\/p>\n

Three judges of the Court i.e.\u00a0Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices A K Sikri and N V Ramana, had recused themselves from hearing the matter.<\/a><\/p>\n

Background of the matter<\/strong>:<\/p>\n