MALLYA WITNESS QUOTES SC TO TERM CBI A ‘CAGED PARROT’
LONDON : A political expert on Tuesday recalled the various criticisms made against the CBI, including the Supreme Court’s comparison of the investigation agency with a “caged parrot”, during the ongoing extradition trial of controversial businessman Vijay Mallya.
The first half of the day at the Westminster magistrate’s court focused on Lawrence Saez, professor of political economy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, deposing on Mallya’s behalf, and prosecution lawyer Mark Summers grilling him on his expert observations.
Saez supported the defence’s view that the investigation agency faced more political interference under the NDA government than the previous regime. The CBI is the lead agency probing the former liquor baron’s alleged financial offences.
The post-lunch session saw banking expert Paul Rex return to depose on issues related to loans secured by Kingfisher Airlines from IDBI. Mallya’s lawyer sought to build its case about the businessman being the victim of a political witch-hunt by depicting that the CBI was highly influenced by its political masters.
Saez reiterated in court that both the Congress and BJP were allegedly trying to reap political capital from the Mallya case. Summers, however, grilled him for his “over-reliance” on press reports to form conclusions on Indian politics as well as the CBI. The expert defended his strategy on the grounds that the Indian press was as free and credible a source of information as any.
Saez cited press reports and a commentary in the Economic and Political Weekly to state CBI lacked political independence. He also used accounts by EX-CBI director Joginder Singh to substantiate his criticism of CBI.
Before the day began, Summers brought a note by Portsmouth University Law academic Shubhankar Dam – the lead author of a research article cited by the defence’s law expert Martin Lau to allege corruption in the Supreme Court – to the notice of magistrate Emma Arbuthnot. Dam criticised the manner in which the article had been “grossly misrepresented” by Lau.