Supreme Court confirms CBI probe into gutka scam

CHENNAI: The Supreme Court has entrusted the ‘gutka scam’ probe with the CBI, saying its tentacles were not limited to just Tamil Nadu but transcended beyond to other states -- and may be overseas -- besides involving high ranking officials of the state as well as the central government.
Concurring with the submissions of senior counsel for former additional solicitorgeneral of India P Wilson, and confirming Madras high court’s April 26 verdict, the apex court said on Friday: “For instilling confidence in the minds of the victims as well as public at large, the high court predicated that it was but necessary to entrust the investigation of such a crime to CBI.Viewed thus, there is no infirmity in the conclusion.”
In the process the apex court reiterated two crucial views – one, merely because an opposition leader has filed the petition, it should not be taken lightly, as opposition plays the role of a watchdog; two, a person named in an FIR had no right to be heard at the investigation stage.
The three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud was passing orders on a special leave petition filed by a food safety officer, accused in the scam. Among other issues, the officer had assailed the high court order saying the PIL had originally been filed by DMK MLA J Anbazhagan, and hence it was nothing but political vendetta.
Trashing the argument, the apex court referred to its own judgment in a disproportionate assets case involving former chief minister Jayalalithaa, holding that the opposition had the role of a watchdog and that merely because proceedings had been initiated by an opposition party it could not be viewed lightly.
“Political opponents play an important role both inside and outside the House and are the watchdogs of the government in power. They are the mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at large, if genuinely and unbiasedly projected,” pointed out the bench, referring to apex court verdict in the K Anbazhagan case.
As for the petitioner’s claim that no opportunity of being heard was given to him, the judges said, “a person, who is named as an accused in the FIR, who otherwise has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation or to have an opportunity of hearing as a matter of course, cannot be heard to say that the direction issued to transfer the investigation to CBI is a nullity. This ground, in our opinion, is an argument of desperation and deserves to be rejected.”
The bench also made it clear that transfer of investigation of the crime to CBI was no reflection on the efficiency or efficacy of the investigation done by the State Vigilance Commission.