A Supreme Court (SC) bench yesterday questioned the silence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while he sanctioned the prosecution go-ahead against tainted minister A Raja and for not initiating action in time following former law minister Subramaniam Swamy’s complaint, as solicitor general Gopal Subramanium defended the PM.
The Indian Express reported that a bench consisting of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly raised questions about the Government’s late response in allowing the prosecution of Raja:
“The court, which noted that Swamy waited patiently for 11 months, observed that ‘for good governance there must be some time-limit for granting sanctions, if not three-months. But 11 months is too long’.
Subramanium said in the present case the competent authority needed to wait as he wanted to act carefully by going through sufficient material.
However, the Bench observed that instead of waiting, the competent authority could have said that material supplied along with complaint was not sufficient.”
“The Bench was categorical that the competent authority in the case [Prime Minister] should have acted within three months of receiving the complaint of Swamy in accordance with guidelines laid down in the Vineet Narain judgment relating to the Hawala case… The judgment in the Vineet Narain case has fixed certain time-limit for grant of sanction by the competent authority. It is open to the sanctioning authority to refer (application) or consult the Attorney General," the newspaper quoted the SC bench.
"The three months time for grant of sanction laid by the Supreme Court is clear for fair and good governance," the Bench is reported to have told Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium, who was appearing for the government.
"We find it is now more than 16 months. The sanctioning authority can say I am not inclined to give sanction. But we find the alleged inaction and silence troubling," the Bench observed, adding: "The sanctioning authority can say yes or no".
However, solicitor general Subramanium has said that this criticism of Singh should not be seen as an embarrassment, reported NDTV.
In a related development the SC also slammed the media for "misreporting" Gopal Subramanium’s alleged attempt to involve the CBI counsel and Raja’s lawyer TR Andhyarujina for discussion on the case strategy of the controversial matter.
Andhyarujina and Subramanium both denied the report as incorrect and the bench accepted the integrity of both lawyers. "I have shoulders broad enough to take it in my stride," commented Subramanium according to the Times of India, which stood by its original story.
Outlook India has published the full Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) complaint.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
i fail to understand why there is no criticism of SG on LI nor any comments of you over the Bar Exam & pages only filled with praise of SG. the same is reflected in this article of yours. you highlighted how SG was misquoted, everytime & regularly.
Why nothing in favour of Exams,oops my mistake nothing against exam, why no views of students are allowed without editing when there is anything against SG.
to be very fair & be a online portal 4 those who defend any1 whether it be a afzal guru or rathore or A. Raja we are going to defend anyone who pays us how much we want but in public we are open what we are upto and we are gonna do. but these days LI is heading to a S**t like Newschannel where they are not doing what they ought to do rather than doing what they no1 does. i hope LI does'nt become India TV of the news channel but be like the NDTV or CNN.
Prvsly i used to say BAR& Bench should become like LI but now it's vice-versa. Many Corporate Honcho's say they want to become like this, 5 days a big Corporate Head said this- there's no shame in this that we want to become & Achieve the status in ***** like the ****** Company.
hoping non-biased news in future.
A depressed reader
How this man can cleanse legal system ?
Thanks for your comment.
You seem to have misread this article. We did not say that Gopal Subramanium was misquoted, we only say that Supreme Court said this was misreported, and that GS denied the Times of India report, while TOI stood by its original story. We do not know the full facts here as we have not done detailed original reporting on this story and instead have clearly relied and referred to mainstream press reports. To clarify this I have now added quotation marks around "misreported" to make it clear we are using the language apparently used by the court.
However, in the larger scale of things, perhaps you mistake our purpose. In news stories our purpose is not to criticise or give you our opinion. All we do is try to condense the facts as we reasonably understand them.
As a great journalist once famously said: "Comment is free but facts are sacred."
If you want opinion, please read articles in our Analysis section or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter, in which we indulge in a little more editorial leeway on comment and opinion. Or read articles in our Legal Opinion section.
In such columns we have in the past criticised Gopal Subramanium about some of his methods in implementing the bar exam, for example, while also readily acknowledging his apparently good intention. As anywhere else in life, nothing is black and white.
Legally India is ultimately here to give you an unbiased reporting of the facts so you can make up your own mind and form your own opinions.
I believe there is already too much shallowly formed opinion in the media, so I feel no need to add to it and I hope we can continue with our current approach.
Best regards
Kian
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first