SIT IN COURTROOM CORNER, PAY ₹1L FINE, SUPREME COURT TELLS RAO

NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday found the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for disobeying its explicit order and transferring an officer probing alleged sexual abuse of inmates of a Bihar shelter home during his time as interim director of the agency.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and justices LN Rao and Sanjeev Khanna imposed a fine of ~1 lakh on Rao, additional director at CBI, and sentenced him to sit in a corner of the court until it rose for the day. The bench rejected Rao’s defence that the transfer order was not “wilful disobedience” but an “error of judgement” on his part.

CBI’s additional legal advisor S Bhasuran was also found to have violated the court order because, in his legal opinion, he favoured joint director AK Sharma’s transfer without seeking the court’s prior approval.

Bhasuran advised the agency to get post-transfer approval from the top court. He was also fined ~1 lakh and ordered to a sit in a corner until the court rose tor the day.

“It this is not contempt, then what would it be?” the bench asked attorney general KK Venugopa, who put up a strong defence of Rao and Bhasuran. Venugopal said the two committed a “serious mistake” but not wilfully so.

“I do not think it’s a case where they should be punished. It is very clear that it was not wilful,” the AG said.

Rao, a 1986 batch Odisha cadre Indian Police Service officer, was made interim director of CBI after Alok Verma was asked to go on leave on the intervening night of October 23-24 over an increasingly public feud with his deputy Rakesh Asthana, with whom he traded allegations of corruption. Former Madhya Pradesh Police chief Rishi Kumar Shukla was appointed CBI chief on February 2.

The conviction and sentencing of Rao leaves a question mark over his career progression. He is due to retire by the end of July 2020 and had already been out of contention for the top job in the CBI given that Shukla’s term is to run until February 2021.

“But even otherwise, the conviction and sentencing, in theory, makes him ineligible for the top job in the CBI. As far as his promotion to the rank of director general is concerned, there is big question mark there, but still it all depends on the view taken by the government of the day,” said a former IPS officer who requested anonymity.

Both Rao and Bhasuran were present in court during the hearing. When CJI Gogoi asked them if they had anything to submit, both simply stood with folded hands. The sentencing order was dictated at 11:50 am and the CJI asked Rao and Bhasuran to sit in a corner in the visitors’ gallery.

At around 3:40 pm, the two made an attempt to apologise again. However, the court refused to accept it. “We had sentenced you both till the rising of this court and this court is yet to rise. Go back or else we will sentence you tomorrow too,” the bench said.

Annoyed over Rao transferring Sharma to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as additional director, the top court last week summoned him and Bhasuran to the court. The current CBI director was also asked to submit the file noting on the transfer order. Venugopal placed the documents before the court and explained that the actions were not wilful.

The judges disagreed and said Rao was fully aware of the apex court’s order and initially asked the concerned branches to seek SC’s approval before the transfer. But within hours, he cleared a draft order by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to transfer Sharma to CRPF, without satisfying himself whether steps had been taken to apprise the top court. The developments, the court noted, took place on a single day, January 18.

“The present is a case where contempt had been committed both by the interim director and the legal advisor,” the CJI dictated in his order, refusing to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the duo.

“Would heavens have fallen if the relieving order [of Sharma] was implemented a day later and SC was taken into confidence?” the CJI asked Venugopal.

The CJI referred to Rao’s note in the file and said it was “obvious he knew there was a SC order because in his first note he acknowledges the SC order. In the second note, on the advice of the legal advisor, he asks the officers to submit an affidavit to the court immediately. But, the third time, when he receives a draft note from DoPT, he approves the relieving order. And all this happens on January 18.”

The court also took strong exception to the fact that Rao never bothered to seek post-facto approval of the transfer. “Should he not have asked why the affidavit was not filed? Why did he not ensure the affidavit was filed or not,” the CJI asked Venugopal.

The bench was informed by the petitioner’s lawyer, Fauzia Shakil, that CBI for the first time had disclosed Sharma’s transfer in a status report filed in Muzaffarpur on January 30. “For two weeks he kept quiet and we were informed about it only in the status report. Even his affidavit is an admission of commission of contempt,” CJI said.

Venugopal urged the court to accept the unconditional apology as any punishment would tarnish Rao’s image and his unblemished career of several years. At this, the court told him: “Mr attorney, even if [I] were to accept his affidavit of apology, it would still amount to contempt on his own admission. The career of this officer is already blemished.”

The CJI wrapped up the hearing by saying : “Mr attorney, let us be very clear. I do not think any of us ever had the occasion to invoke a contempt power. But it has to be the first time. Speaking for myself, I believe dignity and majesty of his court should be maintained, and this is blatant.”

Venugopal responded: “The two have thrown themselves to the mercy of this court. To forgive is divine.”

THE BENCH WAS INFORMED BY THE PETITIONER’S LAWYER, FAUZIA SHAKIL, THAT CBI FOR THE FIRST TIME HAD DISCLOSED SHARMA’S TRANSFER IN A STATUS REPORT FILED IN MUZAFFARPUR ON JANUARY 30