Under Alok Kumar Verma, CBI tapped many phones

Written By Sumit Kumar Singh | Updated: Jan 16, 2019, 05:00 AM IST

Alok Kumar Verma

Delhi HC seeks CBI, govt's reply on allegations of illegal snooping

Delhi High Court issued notices on Tuesday to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Centre on a petition filed by an advocate alleging that former CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma had ordered illegal snooping on some of the country's top officers, including National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. The petitioner, Sarthak Chaturvedi, requested the court to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case.

Chaturvedi also claimed that Union law secretary Suresh Chandra and Andhra Pradesh Cadre IAS officer Rekha Rani's phones were tapped and they were put under surveillance as well. He also claimed that Cabinet Secretary PK Sinha was put under surveillance.

The petition has claimed that even the phones of special secretary, RAW, and the law secretary were put under surveillance.

A bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice VK Rao said such activities were "very dangerous for the country" and issued a notice to the CBI.

Chaturvedi alleged that some CBI officials had abused their power by violating the mandated guidelines on phone tapping and surveillance. The petition has also questioned as to whether permission was taken for tapping the phone of Doval and others by the CBI.

The petition refers to CBI DIG Manish Kumar Sinha's submission in the Supreme Court last year, challenging his transfer during the infighting between Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana. It was then when the issue of tapping of phones was revealed, the petition claimed. Sinha, who was among the officers transferred by interim CBI chief Nageswar Rao after agency director Alok Verma was sent on leave in October, had alleged that Doval had interfered in investigations against Asthana.

Sinha, who was probing a case against Asthana, had said in his petition that the surveillance had stumbled upon a conversation involving R&AW officer Samant Goel in which he was heard saying that the PMO had managed the CBI issue. That same night, the petition alleged, the entire CBI team involved in the probe against Asthana, was removed.

He claimed that Doval had informed Asthana about the FIR after which he had reportedly made a request to the NSA that he should not be arrested. "The NSA informed Rakesh Asthana about the FIR and Asthana reportedly made a request to the NSA that he should not be arrested," the petition claims.

"Phone numbers of Manoj Prasad and Somesh Prasad were under technical surveillance by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI's Special Unit, and the CBI. It requires a probe to determine whether any permission was obtained as per rules," the petition stated, adding that the Special Unit had placed many numbers on technical surveillance and was analysing call data records.

The petitioner further pointed out that immediately after Manoj's arrest, Somesh had made calls to Samant Goel (Special Secretary, RAW), who then called Asthana. Four phone calls were made between Somesh and Goel and four between Goel and Asthana by October 17, 2018, afternoon. There was also a call between Dineshwar Prasad, father of Somesh and Manoj, with Goel.

The petitioner claims that this establishes that mobile numbers of Manoj, Somesh, Goel, Dineshwar, and Asthana were intercepted illegally by the DIG of CBI Special Unit Rakesh Rathi, who was directly reporting to Joint Director AK Sharma, and subsequently to Verma.

On October 17, 2018, the former CBI director briefed Doval and informed him that Asthana's name is cited in the FIR. Subsequently, on the same night, the Special Unit informed Manish Sinha, DIG, and head of the branch of AC-III, that NSA has informed Asthana about the registration of FIR.

"It was informed that Asthana reportedly made a request to NSA that he should not be arrested. How did the Special Unit get to know about this? Did they illegally intercept NSA and Rakesh Asthana's phone calls?" the petitioner questioned.

The petitioner also stated that Sinha became aware of the fact that during the pendency of the investigation going in CVC against Verma and the Union Law Secretary Suresh Chandra waded into the issue.

The petition claims that Sathish Babu Sana, a Hyderabad-based businessman on whose statement an FIR was registered against Asthana, was approached by Rekha Rani, an IAS officer from the Andhra Pradesh cadre, the Union Law Secretary, and Cabinet Secretary PK Sinha to convince him for withdrawing his FIR against Asthana.

Apart from seeking setting up of a special investigation team (SIT), the petitioner also sought framing of comprehensive guidelines on tracing, tapping and surveillance of phone calls along with preparation of stocks and accountability of officials.

However, the plea for framing of guidelines was not pressed after the central government's standing counsel Gaurang Kanth, appearing for the Ministry of Home Affairs, told the court that such norms have already been laid down by the Supreme Court.

The petition contended that the existing policy on phone tapping and surveillance was "not comprehensive and bestows uncontrolled and unaccountable powers in the hands of public servants".

(with PTI inputs)

Keeping a close eye

‘Nation’s top officers’ put under surveillance’

  • Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor 
  • Suresh Chandra, Law Secretary 
  • PK Sinha, Cabinet Secretary 
  • Rekha Rani, IAS officer of Andhra Pradesh Cadre
  • Samant Goel, RA&W Special Director,
  • Rakesh Asthana, CBI Special Director 
  • Devender Kumar, Deputy SP at CBI
  • Dineshwar Prasad, former RA&W Director
  • Manoj Prasad, son of Dineshwar Prasad
  • Somesh Prasad, son of Dineshwar Prasad
  • V Chamundeswara Nath, Former BCCI Chairman Jr Selection panel

How It’s Done

To conduct surveillance of phones, the CBI needs approval from the Union Home Secretary. However, under an ‘emergency clause’, an exception can be provided, which permits the head of the agency to order surveillance. However, CBI is required to inform the Union Home Secretary within three days and seek approval in 7 days, failing which the telecom firm stops diverting calls to servers especially installed for eavesdropping