CBI defends re-investigation against Sajjan Kumar in Supreme Court

The CBI today defended in the Supreme Court its decision to re-investigate the case against senior Congress leader Sajjan Kumar for his alleged involvement in 1984-anti-Sikh riots, saying it was a decision taken by Parliament.

Appearing for the agency, additional solicitor general Haren Rawal told a bench of justices P Sathasivam and AR Dave that the decision to re-investigate the case against the Congress leader was announced in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha by the prime minister after the two House had debated the recommendations of the Justice Nanavati Commission report.

He said that Parliament had in 2005 decided that the matter be re-investigated as it was felt that the investigation was not done in a fair manner by the local police, as found out by the Nanavati panel.

The CBI has already filed an affidavit in the apex court accusing the special anti-riots cell of the Delhi police of conducting "sham investigations and farcical prosecutions" to apparently shield Kumar a former MP.

The agency had also urged the apex court to vacate the August 13 stay granted by it. The CBI is seeking the prosecution of Kumar for leading the mob during the riots under Delhi Cantonment police station in which 60 people were killed.

During today's arguments, Rawal questioned the intention of the anti-riot cell of Delhi police in filing status reports on July 31, 2008, in the trial court after the investigation was taken over by the CBI.

"There was no occasion for the Delhi police to deal with the case once the entire material was supplied to the CBI by the government of India from the custody of the Delhi police (on October 10, 2005)," the agency said.

The CBI also accused the Delhi police of filing another status report in the trial court on July 31, 2008, and pointed out that the trial judge and the Delhi high court have termed it as "clandestine attempt to hush up the matter".

Earlier, senior counsel UU Lalit, appearing for Kumar, contended that the complainants' testimony against him were unreliable as they were made 16-25 years after the incidents.

He pointed out that two of the witnesses Nirpreet Kaur and Zaksher Singh had testified against Kumar after 25 years whereas another complainant Jagdish Kaur had named the Congress leader 16 years after the incident.

The counsel said Jagdish Kaur had filed a sworn affidavit before the Ranganth Mishra Commission on September 7, 1995, in which she named several Congress leaders but nowhere did she mention Kumar.

But in May, 2000, she filed an affidavit before the GT Nanavati Commission naming Kumar as the man who led the mob which killed her husband and son.

However, thereafter in her personal deposition before the Commission, she did not mention Kumar's name anywhere, the appeal had stated.