2013-14 raids: SC seeks material to go into plea seeking SIT probe

The Supreme Court today made it clear that it is not going to entertain the plea of an NGO seeking SIT probe into alleged recovery of documents by the IT department in connection with raids on two business houses unless it comes out with firm and relevant material. The apex court said there was difficulty in going into the petition which deals with high functionaries as it was not supported by even a smallest material.

The court was hearing an application filed by NGO Common Cause seeking constitution of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe "incriminating" evidence and details of "unaccounted" cash recovered allegedly during the raids by the Income Tax department and CBI on the two companies in 2013- 2014. The NGO had alleged that the documents seized by CBI in its search operation in Mumbai reportedly revealed massive bribery of politicians and officials of various ministries over several years.

However, a bench comprising Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra, which during the last hearing on November 25 had asked the NGO to come out with relevant material, said that despite giving a definite date for hearing there is no material placed on record to support the allegations in the petition. The bench said it does not want to keep the matter pending and asked the NGO to come out with firm material on the matter on December 16.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, said it was unreasonable for the court to deal with the matter in such a manner and not to give further date for supplying the relevant documents. The bench responded saying "it is not unreasonable as you are dealing with very high functionaries". "You bring very firm and very clear material. You bring it, we have no difficulty," the bench said.

When Bhushan said the court was forcing him to bring the relevant material within two days, the bench said, "yes, it is not unreasonable as you are just casting aspersions". An agitated Bhushan said that he was not casting any aspersions. The bench asked him to lower his pitch and said "we have a settled proposition that you have to give us a material".

When Bhushan questioned the hurriedness in which the court wants to deal with the matter, the bench told him that it is very difficult for a person to function against whom aspersion is made. "There is no difficulty if you bring the material. It is only today's midnight oil that you have to burn," the bench said while posting the matter for December 16.

While stressing that the allegations have to be supported by some material, the bench said," this is becoming very abnormal for us. Give us any smallest material, we will deal with it. We have already told you that you are talking about conversation about persons on telephone. These are nothing."

"We are not going to keep the matter pending, you have to come out with firm and relevant material. You are dealing with high functionaries." The bench also reminded Bhushan that in his absence during the last hearing on November 25, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani has said that he will bring on record the relevant material but he is neither present nor has he placed relevant material.

Bhushan said that Jethmalani was out of the country. However, this statement was countered by some of the advocates who said that Jethmalani was in the court. At this point, the bench said, "we gave you a definite date of December 14 and there is no material". Bhushan said the NGO had decided to bring the material on Monday but it was declared holiday and the Registry had shifted the date of hearing to January 11, 2017.

However, the bench said December 14 was not a declared holiday and that is why the court had given a firm date of hearing, which can't be changed. However, when Bhushan said that Registry has changed the date, the bench shot back saying, "even the Chief Justice of India can't change the date. Nobody can change it."

On November 25, the top court had refused to go into the NGO's plea seeking probe into alleged recovery of documents by the IT department in connection with raids on two business houses here in 2013-14 which purportedly showed computerised inventories containing designations of top people having received money. The application had claimed that "actionable evidence" gathered during the raids on both the groups was given a "quiet burial" by IT department and CBI.