Downloaded By : Current Affairs Funda

Reinstated, conditionally: on CBI Director’s return

currentaffairsfunda.com/2019/01/09/reinstated-conditionally-on-cbi-directors-return/

By vis001 January 9, 2019

Reinstated, conditionally: on CBI Director’s return

Supreme Court rejects the Centre’s contention in the CBI Director’s case,
but softens the blow
In setting aside the orders divesting(अिधकार से वंिचत) Alok Verma of his
functions and duties as Director of the CBI, the Supreme Court has strengthened(मजबूत
िकया) the principle that the head of the agency should be insulated(अछूता) against any form
of interference(दखल अं दाजी/ह त ेप). The court took up the matter in the midst of an
unseemly(िन संदेह) tussle(खी ंचतान,संघष/लड़ाई) for supremacy(वच व/सवो चता) between Mr.
Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana, with corruption charges (भ टाचार के आरोप)
being traded(बारी-बारी से/कारोबार). However, the court’s interim(अं तिरम ) order asking for a
time-bound inquiry into the charges against Mr. Verma is now of no avail, as the Bench,
headed(अ य ता) by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, has chosen to deal only with the major
question of law involved(शािमल।). The decision has gone against(िखलाफ) the government,
with the court holding that the action taken against Mr. Verma amounted to a ‘transfer’,
something that cannot be done by any authority except the high-powered selection
committee headed by the Prime Minister in terms of the 2003 amendments(संशोधन/सुधार)
to the law. It has rejected the government’s contention(िववाद) that stripping(अलग करना) the
CBI Director of his duties did not amount to a transfer, but only a measure(उपाय) to deal
with an extraordinary(असाधारण ) situation. It has gone into the legislative(िविध िनमाण)
intent(पयोजन/इरादा) behind the amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission Act in
2003, which included changes to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act before coming
up with its finding.

The Bench has noted that the amendments flow from the principles laid down(िनधािरत) by
the Supreme Court in 1997 in Vineet Narain to protect the agency, especially its Director,
from external(बाहरी) interference. As the law is clear that any transfer of the Director can
only be made by the selection committee, and there being no provision( पावधान ) for any
other interim measure, the only way the government can divest the head of the agency of
his powers is to let the same committee make the decision. The court has been
mindful( यान) of the fact that an officer could be stripped(छीन ली) of his power without
being formally transferred to another position, thereby achieving(पा त करना) the
objective(दखल देने ) of interfering(उ े य) with the agency’s functioning by oblique(परो )
means. Its decision will further strengthen the CBI’s independence. However, it is

1/4
intriguing(सािज़श का/िदलच प)that the court passed a consequential(अहम/पिरणामी) order to
the selection committee to meet within a week and consider(िवचार करे)ं Mr. Verma’s powers
and authority. Until then, he has been restrained(िवचारशील/दबाया हुआ) from making any
policy decisions. Having set aside the orders of the government divesting Mr. Verma of his
powers, as well as the CVC’s order recommending the action, the court could have
reinstated him unconditionally(िबना शत). What it has done, instead(बजाय/बदले मे)ं , is to
soften the blow it had dealt the government by giving it an opportunity to achieve through
the committee route what it could not do successfully through its midnight ‘coup’.

Important Vocabulary

1. Strengthened(मजबूत िकया)
Synonyms: bolster, build up, enhance, enlarge, establish
Antonyms: abridge, condense, curtail, decrease, destroy

2. Divesting(अिधकार से वंिचत)
Synonyms: bankrupt, deprive, dismantle, rob, unload
Antonyms: give, offer, clothe, cover, hide

3. Tussle(खी ंचतान,संघष/लड़ाई)
Synonyms: brawl, fray, free-for-all, scuffle, skirmish
Antonyms: agreement, harmony, peace, accord, calm

4. Unseemly(िन संदेह)
Synonyms: inappropriate, indecent, tawdry, undignified, untoward
Antonyms: proper, suitable, appropriate, due, fitting

5. Stripping(अलग करना)
Synonyms: striptease, peel, despoil, disrobe, unclothe

6. Contention(िववाद
Synonyms: argument, conflict, controversy, dispute, rivalry
Antonyms: accord, agreement, harmony, peace, approval

7.Extraordinary(असाधारण )
Synonyms: amazing, bizarre, curious, exceptional, fantastic
Antonyms: average, bad, believable, common, commonplace

8. Intent(पयोजन/इरादा
Synonyms: decided, hell-bent, preoccupied, resolved, alert
Antonyms: flexible, indefinite, soft, trivial, unconcerned

9. Supremacy(वच व/सवो चता)

Synonyms: dominance, preeminence, primacy, sovereignty, superiority
Antonyms: inferiority, subordination, weakness, subservience

10. laid down(िनधािरत)

Synonyms: allow, drop, have, leave behind, let
Antonyms: disallow, keep, refuse, reject, care

11. Intriguing(सािज़श का/िदलच प)

2/4
Synonyms: absorbing, alluring, appealing, beguiling, captivating
Antonyms: boring, unexciting, unstimulating

12. Restrained(िवचारशील/दबाया हुआ)

Synonyms: discreet, laid-back, mild, muted, reasonable
Antonyms: communicative, extroverted, friendly, outgoing, assured

13. Intriguing(सािज़श का/िदलच प)

Synonyms: absorbing, alluring, appealing, beguiling, captivating
Antonyms: boring, unexciting, unstimulating

14.Restrained(िवचारशील/दबाया हुआ)
Synonyms: discreet, laid-back, mild, muted, reasonable
Antonyms: communicative, extroverted, friendly, outgoing, assured

15. Consequential(अहम/पिरणामी)
Synonyms: far-reaching, meaningful, momentous, substantial, weighty
Antonyms: insignificant, small, trivial, unimportant, unsubstantial

16. Unconditionally(िबना शत).

Synonyms: categorically, completely, thoroughly, flatly, unqualifiedly

17. Provision( पावधान

Synonyms: arrangement, plan, accouterment, catering, emergency
Antonyms: removal, taking

Credit To The Hindu News Paper

Supreme Court rejects the Centre’s contention in the CBI Director’s case, but softens the
blow
In setting aside the orders divesting Alok Verma of his functions and duties as Director of
the CBI, the Supreme Court has strengthened the principle that the head of the agency
should be insulated against any form of interference. The court took up the matter in the
midst of an unseemly tussle for supremacy between Mr. Verma and Special Director
Rakesh Asthana, with corruption charges being traded. However, the court’s interim order
asking for a time-bound inquiry into the charges against Mr. Verma is now of no avail, as
the Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, has chosen to deal only with the major
question of law involved. The decision has gone against the government, with the court
holding that the action taken against Mr. Verma amounted to a ‘transfer’, something that
cannot be done by any authority except the high-powered selection committee headed by
the Prime Minister in terms of the 2003 amendments to the law. It has rejected the
government’s contention that stripping the CBI Director of his duties did not amount to a
transfer, but only a measure to deal with an extraordinary situation. It has gone into the
legislative intent behind the amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission Act in 2003,
which included changes to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act before coming up
with its finding.

3/4
The Bench has noted that the amendments flow from the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in 1997 in Vineet Narain to protect the agency, especially its Director, from
external interference. As the law is clear that any transfer of the Director can only be made
by the selection committee, and there being no provision for any other interim measure, the
only way the government can divest the head of the agency of his powers is to let the same
committee make the decision. The court has been mindful of the fact that an officer could
be stripped of his power without being formally transferred to another position, thereby
achieving the objective of interfering with the agency’s functioning by oblique means. Its
decision will further strengthen the CBI’s independence. However, it is intriguing that the
court passed a consequential order to the selection committee to meet within a week and
consider Mr. Verma’s powers and authority. Until then, he has been restrained from making
any policy decisions. Having set aside the orders of the government divesting Mr. Verma of
his powers, as well as the CVC’s order recommending the action, the court could have
reinstated him unconditionally. What it has done, instead, is to soften the blow it had dealt
the government by giving it an opportunity to achieve through the committee route what it
could not do successfully through its midnight ‘coup’.

4/4