In yet another damning report, the CBI on Monday told the Supreme Court that Law Minister Ashwani Kumar made certain “significant changes” in the agency’s draft probe report on Coalgate while top law officers and government officials including those from PMO suggested amendments.
In his nine-page affidavit which will be taken up by the apex court at its hearing on Wednesday, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha detailed at least four changes, two made by the Law Minister and two by joint secretaries of PMO and Coal ministry Shatrughna Singh and A K Bhalla respectively.
The CBI version contradicts reports of Kumar’s account that he was not involved in drafting the changes.
It also belies Attorney General GE Vahanvati’s earlier statement in the court that he did not see the status report.
The affidavit stated that “a few changes were also done on the suggestion of the AG and officials of PMO and coal ministry”.
However, the affidavit said, “It is difficult at this stage to attribute each change to a particular person with certainty. The changes which can be termed significant are elaborated.”
Sinha attributed two significant changes in the draft report to the Law Minister and said those would be seen in paragraph 1.21 and 1.23 of the final status report pertaining to preliminary enquiries (PE).
“Further, from paragraph 1.23 of the same report, deletion of a sentence about scope of enquiry with respect to legality of allocation while the amendments in law were in process, was done by the Union Minister for Law and Justice,” the affidavit said.
“The other tentative findings about non-preparation of broadsheet or chart by the screening committee to the best of our recollection was deleted by the Law Minister,” it said.
“From paragraph 1.21 of PE 2, the tentative finding about the non-existence of a system regarding allocation of specific weightage/points was deleted at the instance of the officials of the PMO and the coal ministry,” the affidavit said.
The affidavit also said, “These changes made by the law minister, PMO and Coal ministry officials were accepted by the CBI as they pertained to its tentative findings.” The director, however, asserted that neither the central theme of status reports got changed after meetings nor any deletion of any evidence against any suspect or accused took place.
Sinha had on April 30 told the apex court that the draft report was shared with the Law Minister and others as per their desire following which he was asked to file a detailed affidavit elaborating changes made in the report by identifying the persons behind them.
The change made in the final status report about non-existence of approved guidelines for allocation of coal blocks was incorporated at the instance of PMO and Coal Ministry officials as “it was factually correct”, Sinha said.
The CBI Director said that AG, not only glanced through the reports but also made certain observations about them besides suggesting some “minor” changes.
Former Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval, who had told the apex court that the draft report was not shared with political executive, was also present in the meetings.
The affidavit spoke about the March 6 meeting at the law minister’s office two days before they were filed in a sealed envelope in the apex court. The meeting was “not called at the request of CBI,” it said.
“On March 6, we were informed by our counsel ASG (Raval) that Law Minister wished to peruse the draft status report at 12.30 PM. Accordingly the draft reports were taken to the office of the Law Minister.
“A copy of the draft report to PE 219 2012 E 002 (allocations made during 2006-09)… was perused by him and he also made certain changes in the same….,” it said.
Sinha said there are no minutes of the meetings which took place with law minister and officials of PMO and coal ministry and details of his affidavit “are based on best recollection of my memory and of my officers”.
Offering his unconditional apology for any inadvertent omission or commission, Sinha assured the apex court of independent and sincere probe in the case.
Responding to a query of the apex court as to under which rule the Minister and officials are entitled to peruse report, the director said there is nothing in the CBI manual to guide whether status reports in an ongoing investigation in a sub-judice matter are to be shared with others.
—PTI