ON July 26, hours after his appointment had been finalised, the new director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Joginder Singh, was advised "not to get influenced by anybody". That the advice came from the Supreme Court, and in the presence of outgoing CBI chief K. Vijaya Rama Rao, did not go unnoticed.
The advice, delivered during a hearing in the St Kitts case, was not without import. Just eight days earlier—when the UF Government was searching for a new CBI boss—the agency had reportedly been working overtime to find ways of giving a clean chit to former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in the Lakhubhai Pathak cheating case.
And the CBI top brass had almost decided not to oppose Rao's July 16 petition to the Delhi High Court asking it to quash the summons served on him by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Prem Kumar under Section 120(b) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
It had even objected to Pathak mentioning Narasimha Rao in the CMM's court, arguing that the Congress president's name did not figure in the original complaint filed by the Pickle King.
The CBI's moves had set tongues wagging about its intentions. The agency was prepared to tell the court that Rao's name never figured at any stage during the course of investigation. This despite the fact that Pathak had alleged that he had paid $100,000 to godman Chandraswami at a Manhattan hotel in 1983 only on the assurance from Rao, then external affairs minister in the Indira Gandhi Cabinet, that "your work will be done". Pathak had been seeking a newsprint and paper pulp supply contract. Not opposing the petition filed by Rao to quash the summons served on him would have virtually amounted to exonerating the former prime minister.
Sources say sharp differences cropped up within the CBI on July 18, when the High Court issued a notice to the agency, two days after Rao filed his petition. The CBI asked its deputy legal advisor A.K. Dutt to prepare a reply saying that Rao's name had never come up in the CBI findings. However, after examining the legal implications of the CMM's order, Dutt reportedly said that since the court had already taken cognisance of the case, the CBI would have to oppose Rao's petition.
Dutt's advice stirred a hornet's nest. Some officials associated with the probe felt that, in such a sensitive case, nothing could be left to chance. They suggested that the opinion of Attorney-General of India Ashok Desai be taken before the agency went to court. On being consulted, Desai, say well-placed sources, instantly dittoed Dutt's stand.
According to the sources, the CBI was compelled to make the volte-face after Ashok Desai gave his opinion that in view of the CMM's order making Rao a co-accused in the cheating case, the CBI had no other option. And, in the end, the CBI counsel Gopal Subrahmanyam did oppose the petition.
Knowing fully well that confronting Vijaya Rama Rao could be a risky gamble, CBI officials requested Desai to give his opinion in writing. His one-page opinion to oppose Rao's petition was put up before 'higher-ups'. And it was only after the attorney general put his stand down in writing that the CBI defended the CMM's order in the High Court. (The court, while reserving its detailed order, exempted Rao from personal appearance in the CMM's court on July 24. The lower court, meanwhile, asked Rao to appear on August 2.)
Satish Chandra, the CBI deputy inspector-general in charge of the Lakhubhai case, said: "I can't confirm or deny the sequence of events. Our stand is what Gopal Subrahmanyam has said in the court." The CBI spokesman denied that there was any "difference of opinion" among the officers vis-a-vis Rao's petition, and expressed complete ignorance about the attorney-general's intervention in the matter.
Meanwhile, the CBI officials are sceptical about the claim made by Rao's counsel Kapil Sibal, that "Rao was not in the United States in December '83". They say that the question of alibi comes much later. Moreover, Sibal had only made a verbal claim. When Justice S.K. Mahajan asked him whether he had mentioned it in the petition, Sibal replied in the affirmative.
But, the officials point out, nowhere does Rao's petition say that the former prime minister was not in the US during that period. It merely says no meeting or conversation took place between Lakhubhai Pathak and the petitioner "on that day" (December 22-23), as was alleged. The CBI officials say if Rao indeed was not in the US in December '83, all he needed to do to prove his innocence was produce his passport. This he hasn't done, although Pathak mentioned Rao's name on July 5.
During his submission before the High Court, Sibal sought to demolish the credibility of Pathak's charge, saying that there was no reference to the money till December 22-23 when Pathak allegedly met Rao. "Then how come Rao gets involved in the conspiracy?" asked Sibal. However, legal eagles say a conspiracy is like a moving train. If you board the train—no matter whether you reach the destination or not—you will be treated as a co-conspirator. They say Rao may not have received the money, but that does not dilute his role as a conspirator. The fact that he has been summoned by the court under Section 120(b) read with Section 420 IPC shows conspiracy is the main charge against him.
RAO'S troubleshooters in the Congress have already done their homework. Says Vishwajit Singh, a member of the AICC thinktank: "Towards the end of December 1983, the AICC was in session in Calcutta. And Rao could not have gone abroad because he was in charge of the draft committee". According to him, all the cases against Rao could not stick in a court of law because the CBI has registered them under the instruction of the courts and not on the merits of each case.
Unmindful of the legal skirmishes, Pathak, it seems, has not given up. He still believes the truth will finally come out, even though most of the witnesses cited by him are now trying to avoid coming on record. But a written account of the late American lawyer Martindale, one of the witnesses cited by Pathak, shows that his claim is not entirely baseless.
Martindale in his 1989 book By Hook or By Crook gives an expose of Chandraswami. The book details the godman's 'dirty deals' and specifically narrates his involvement in cheating Pathak. Writes Martindale: "In December 1983, Pathak claims he gave Chandraswami $100,000...allegedly as a commission to the foreign minister of India to supply pulp and other materials used to make paper." He also says that when Pathak demanded his money back the swami told him to get lost. "When Pathak continued to hound the swami, the guru began to muddy the waters by asserting Pathak was insane."
With the Pathak cheating case and other assorted criminal cases against the Congress president, the task for the newly-appointed CBI chief Joginder Singh becomes that much more onerous. A 1961 batch IPS officer of Karnataka cadre and, of course, a Deve Gowda nominee, Joginder Singh is known as a noncontroversial and low profile officer. This, many feel, may turn out to be his weakness. Says a Home Ministry offi-cial: "The chances of a low-profile officer being manipulated are always greater."
Speculation about his becoming the CBI chief was on for quite some time as it was known that Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda would prefer an officer from his home-state, Karnataka. Initially, Home Minister Indrajit Gupta is said to have had some reservations regarding Singh's appointment, but relented in the end.
Joginder Singh will head an organisation which, despite being pulled up time and again by the judiciary for showing favours to the high and mighty, continues to fight shy of touching influential people. But with the judiciary keeping a close tab on the functioning of the agency, CBI baiters feel there's very little scope for the agency to cosy up to the powers-that-be. Says senior lawyer Arun Jetley: "The reputation of the CBI in the eyes of the judiciary has improved of late, therefore, they won't be able to play around much, even if they want to."
Tags