Summons to Manmohan stayed by SC
Birla, Parakh get relief; coal scam trial is on hold Bench says SC has to decide on key points raised; notice to Centre on Hindalco plea
Giving huge relief to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who had also briefly held the coal portfolio, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the summons by a special court for his appearance in a coal block allocation case as an accused.
A bench of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and C. Nagappan also stayed the summons order to top industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla, his firm Hindalco, former coal secretary P. C. Parakh and others over the 2005 allocation of the Talabira- II coal block in Orissa. The bench admitted six special leave petitions challenging the summons, issued notice to the CBI and stayed all further proceedings in the trial court. The bench heard senior counsel Kapil Sibal for Dr Singh and senior counsel Harish Salve for Mr Birla and said important questions of law had been raised in these petitions, that required consideration by the court.
The bench also issued notice to the Centre on Hindalco’s petition challenging the constitutional validity of a clause in the Prevention of Corruption Act, that was invoked by the trial court in issuing summons. A special court had on March 11 summoned Dr Singh as an accused in the case after observing that there was a “conscious effort on his part to somehow accommodate” the Aditya Birla Group Hindalco in the 2005 allocation.
It also summoned five other accused, Kumar Mangalam Birla, chairman of the Aditya Birla Group; former coal secretary P. C. Parakh; Hindalco executive president B. Shubhendu Amitabh and managing director D. Bhattacharya. Besides Dr Singh, Mr Birla, Mr Parakh, Mr Bhattacharya and others also approached the court and sought quash-
Continued from Page 1 - ing of the summons. Mr Sibal argued that to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act there should be mens rea ( criminal intention), dishonest or fraudulent conduct, pecuniary advantage and there was no instance of alleged criminality that could be attributed to any of his acts as coal minister.
Mr Sibal argued that there was no illegal act in allocation of coal block to a private entrepreneur. The trial failed to identify any statute, rule or even regulation that was violated; failed to identity any “criminal intent” or “abuse of power” by way of an action contrary to the law.
He said the Prime Minister, who had plenary powers, was entitled to take an administrative decision keeping in mind competing public interests.
When the bench pointed out that Dr Singh had reviewed his own decision after the Orissa chief minister wrote a letter to him and overruled the recommendations of the screening committee, Mr Sibal said: “As a minister I review my own decision keeping in mind various interests. How could it become an offence, should I be sent to Tihar Jail for reviewing my administrative decision? Such a decision cannot be considered an act of corruption. The government can’t be run in this fashion.”
He said: “An official, while taking a decision, must be aware of the criminality in the decision. It was only then that criminal liability for the decision could be fastened on him. Otherwise any administrative decision could be termed post- facto as against the public interest, making every officer or public servant cower under the fear of being summoned as an accused even if he/ she had bona fide believed in the correctness of the decision.”
Moreover, he argued it was not for the court to decide whether an administrative decision was good or bad and whether or not it was against the public interest. “The duty of the court is only to see if any crime has been committed, and if so whether there was evidence to nail the guilty.”
When the bench drew Mr Sibal’s attention that Dr Singh had allocated the coal block to Hindalco when there was a recommendation that it should be allocated to Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Mr Sibal said: “70 per cent of the 507 metric tones of coal in the block was allocated to Mahanadi, 15 per cent to NLA and the remaining 15 per cent to Hindalco. In a federal setup, it was his duty to take a decision in the public interest. How could it be called an offence?”
Nagendra Sahu, an advo- cate, moved the court as to why Orissa CM naveen Patnaik was not included as an accused when the trial court rendered a finding that his letter to the then PM was “procured”. He submitted that there was a quid pro quo in Mr Patnaik writing a letter to Dr Singh as Hindalco had donated ` 5 crores to the BJD.
Two of Dr Singh’s daughters were present, seated in the visitors’ gallery of Court No. 9. There was heavy security inside and outside the courtroom.
They looked tense as the proceedings were on, but there was a smile on their faces as the court passed an order staying the summons.