In an order that could trigger another confrontation between the judiciary and the government,the Supreme Court Thursday said that the CBI did not require the sanction of the government to pursue a court-monitored investigation such as the 2G case. Why a sanction is required to investigate? It is a court-monitored investigation,you can go ahead and probe, said a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan,referring to the 2G case. You dont need permission anymore.It is made clear that the CBI is conducting investigation into the matter under the supervision of this court and hence requirement of sanction will not come in the way with respect to investigation of anyone.In a court-monitored investigation,you are not required to get a sanction under Section 6A. The court said that the CBI,which was conducting the investigation under the supervision of the apex court,should not feel inhibited and investigate comprehensively. The courts position may have a direct bearing on the Centres fight in the Coal blocks allotment case to hold on to its power to decide whether the CBI can be allowed to interrogate top officers. In the Coal case,the government has refused to make any exception to the rule which requires the CBI to approach it for sanction to investigate officers at the level of joint secretary or above,as provided under Section 6A of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act. Replying to the query by a three-judge bench led by Justice R M Lodha on why the CBI should approach the government for sanction to investigate,the government has said that this authority could not be taken away even in a court-ordered or -monitored investigation and that the extraordinary powers of the apex court under Articles 32 and 142 were also not adequate. The Centres argument will be heard by this bench on August 6. However,on Thursday,the 2G bench said there could be no requirement for the probe agency to approach the government for sanction when the court was regularly supervising the investigation. The clarification came after senior lawyer K K Venugopal,appearing for the CBI,said that the agency needed to get sanction under Section 6A in the Aircel-Maxis case. Seeking time to finalise the chargesheet in the matter,Venugopal said the CBI had to wait for government approvals. At one point of time,the investigation was quick but now it is getting tardy. This case is being investigated for more than two years now. After our first final order in February 2010,there was no impediment on investigation and you could probe X,Y,anyone. In a court-monitored investigation,you are not required to get a sanction under Section 6A, the bench said. The court then gave the CBI two months to file a chargesheet in the Aircel-Maxis case,in which former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran has been accused of forcing Chennai-based telecom promoter C Sivasankaran to sell stake in Aircel in 2006 to Malaysian firm Maxis Group,owned by Kuala Lumpur-based business tycoon T Ananda Krishnan.
