Driving Naari Programme launched in Chandigarh
Chandigarh
A day after the Supreme Court turned down a CBI’s plea challenging the withdrawal of sacrilege cases probe from it, Punjab Advocate General Atul Nanda has made it clear that the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict in the state’s favour stood confirmed in the process.
Justice Rajan Gupta of the High Court had, in January last year, ruled that the state government was competent to withdraw investigation of a pending FIR in case it was transferred to the CBI.
In his “legal advisory” to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Nanda asserted: “As far as the present case is concerned, the issue stands concluded in favour of the state of Punjab and the SIT is empowered to investigate the cases in question.”
The Supreme Court had dismissed the CBI’s plea on the technical ground of delay in approaching it, following which a question arose where the verdict meant complete confirmation of the High Court judgment. Nanda, in the advisory, has indicated that the Supreme Court’s order was the last word in the matter and the HC judgment stood confirmed in every respect.
Nanda also suggested that the state of Punjab was required to immediately write to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the CBI citing the HC and the Supreme Court order before demanding return of the files. “The failure to return the files should be treated as contempt of court and proceedings must be initiated accordingly,” Nanda said.
He further said the SIT should continue the investigation undeterred by the CBI’s non-cooperation. In any case, the return of files would be a mere formality as the High Court had noticed in its judgment that the CBI had practically not carried out any investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s observation that the question of law was kept open, Nanda added it was in response to the submission made by the CBI counsel that the HC judgment would act as a precedent and affect other investigations being carried out by the agency. It only meant the Supreme Court may enter into such issue of law in case it arose in some other case.
