The Parliament: A joint parliamentary committee headed by B. Shankranand was constituted. This committee will always remain a black spot in Indian parliamentary history. It covered up the truth by returning a finding to the effect that what was paid to foreign entities in various tax havens was not kickbacks but winding up charges paid in order to terminate their agency agreements that had since been prohibited because of the government’s executive decisions.

The Judiciary: The Delhi High Court has the distinction of having passed five erroneous judgments. On December 19, 1990 a single judge bench raised six prima facie illegalities committed by the court for issuing a letter rogatory for assistance in investigation. One of the objections was “that the CBI is not a legally constituted force which can be entrusted with the investigation”.  The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and strictured it.  On September 2, 1992 a division bench of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and the letter rogatory issued in the case.  The Supreme Court again reversed the judgment.  On June 10, 2002 after the CBI had filed a charge sheet in the case, the Delhi High Court quashed the charge sheet on an incredible ground that clearance of the Central Vigilance Commission has not been obtained by the CBI. The Supreme Court again reversed this judgment.  In 2004 a single judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the charges against the public servants while allowing prosecution to proceed against private accused. Once the Prevention of Corruption Act was deleted from the case nothing had remained. The CBI wanted to file an appeal but the Manmohan Singh government did not permit it to do so. Finally on May 31, 2005 the high court quashed the case against the private accused not on merits but on the grounds that the allegations of bribery and kickbacks were not contained in documents, which were merely certified copies and not duly authenticated. The CBI again did not appeal in the case.

... contd.