The Centre today faced the ire of the Supreme Court for failing to implement its three-year-old directions including setting up of a SIT to probe all cases of black money and disclosing information received from Germany about individuals stashing money in Liechtenstein Bank.
"It is totally contempt of our directions," a bench headed by Justice H L Dattu said while disapproving the contention of Solicitor General (SG) Mohan Parasaran that all the directions in July 4, 2011 judgement were inter-connected and disclosure of names received from Germany was to be done after the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
"In our view the judgement has to be read disjunctively and not conjectively," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B Lokur, said.
"We have to take the statement of Solicitor General with a pinch of salt," it said and added that "We are not satisfied with the explanation of the SG".
Parasaran had submitted that since investigation was being done by so many authorities, the Centre was to disclose names against whom show cause notices have been issued after the SIT probe.
Disagreeing with him, the bench said, "This has nothing to do with the SIT. Today we are very clear that you have to give the documents and information received from Germany about the account holders in Liechtenstein Bank.
"Secondly, the investigation has to be taken over by the SIT. Thirdly, you have to disclose the names of those against whom show cause notices have been issued," the bench said while referring to its July 4, 2011 directions in which it was stated that the Centre had to "forthwith" comply with its order.
The bench was also surprised that three years after its direction it was informed today that its former judge, Justice B P Jeevan Reddy, who was appointed to head the 13-member SIT, had expressed his inability by a letter dated August 15, 2011 to lead the team which was reiterated by him through another letter of April 18, 2014 addressed to the Joint Secretary, Revenue Department.
"How all of a sudden this letter has surfaced. We are surprised that August 15, 2011, letter did not surface in previous occasion," the bench said, referring to both the letters in which Justice Reddy only expressed his willingness to provide guidance and directions to the SIT.
The bench asked both the Centre and petitioners which included eminent jurist Ram Jethmalani to discuss and come out with the name of a former apex court judge who would agree to head the SIT.
However, it clarified that the judge should be senior to former apex court judge M B Shah, who has been appointed Vice Chairman of the SIT.
"Before constituting the SIT, the court was in touch with Justice Jeevan Reddy. Now both of you in consultation can come out with a common name so that it does not create any ripples and before mentioning the name, have a word with the judge. We don't want to suggest name of any judge," the bench said.
While posting the matter on April 29, the bench asked the Solicitor General to take proper instruction from the Revenue Secretary and also respond. "What prevented them (Centre) to comply with the directions."
When the bench told the SG it was hearing the application filed by Jethmalani and others that the Centre has not complied with the order of disclosing the names of the account holders in Liechtenstein Bank, he said it can't be done unless the SIT is constituted.
While the bench disagreed with him, senior advocate Anil Divan, appearing for Jethmalani said, "The direction is that the Union of India will forthwith give information, documents and materials received from Germany."
"If no stay is granted, the order has to be implemented. There is no stay of July 4, 2011 directions," he argued.
Concurring with his arguments, the bench said, "You (Centre) are directed by the court to disclose names, materials received from Germany to petitioners and SIT will take over and carry out further investigation."
The bench said the Centre's prayers are disjuncted and there were positive directions in July 4, 2011 judgement which stated "forthwith" and it does not mean that the information has to be disclosed after the SIT probe.
© Copyright PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of any PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.