The debate on whether or not the filing of chargesheets against some major Oppositionpoliticians as well as some of his cabinet colleagues was a master move by Prime MinisterP.V. Narasimha Rao will rage for quite some time to come. What is not a matter of debate,however, is that it was the judiciary—the three-member bench of the Supreme Court(SC) headed by Justice J.S. Verma—that really forced the pace of investigations inthe Jain hawala case. A look at the various pronouncements of the apex court since October15, 1993, when a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by journalists Vineet Narainand Rajinder Puri alleging a massive cover-up from March 1991 when the Jain diaries wereseized, proves this beyond any doubt.
October 27, 1993: The SC admits the PIL seeking the court ’s interventionto ensure that the politicians and bureaucrats involved in the hawala case are not allowedto go scot-free because of a cover-up by the CBI.
November 30 and December 14, 1993: The SC takes up the matter for preliminaryscrutiny.
December 15, 1993: The SC issues a notice to the CBI on the basis of the PILwhich alleges that 115 senior politicians and bureaucrats were involved in the hawalapay-offs.
January 14, 1994: The CBI files a reply accepting most of the petitioners’allegations.
March 7 to November 23, 1994: A series of adjournments (11 in all) during whichattempts are made by the petitioners to give the case a higher pro file in the media. Thisis the time when the attention of the SC is fixed primarily on cases related to Ayodhya.In November, the SC bench begins turning the screws on the CBI and monitors theinvestigations closely.
November 29, 1994: The CBI gets its first major tongue-lashing from the SC inthe hawala case. "There is something rotten in the State of Denmark," ishow Justices Verma, S.P. Barucha and S.C. Sen, comprising a recently constituted bench ofthe SC, describe the handling of the probe by the CBI. Verma tells Solicitor- GeneralDipanker Gupta, counsel for the CBI: "There is no point in seeking peripheralremedies . "
Responding to the point raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the Jains hadnot been arrested despite evidence against them, the bench observes: "If we are meantonly for punishing people for petty offences and letting people who spend lakhs onbirthdays go scot-free, we had better close down the courts . "
Adds Verma: "I find it hard to believe that one can perpetuate such a fraud andget away. All you need is courage to be a criminal and say I can get away with doinganything.... It appears as if the Jains are too hot to handle and the only way to keepthem quiet is to let them do what they want."
November 30, 1994: The CBI is again pulled up by the bench for its inaction and thecabinet secretary is issued a notice to explain the role of other enforcement agenciessuch as the IT Department and the Enforcement Directorate in the matter.
The judges observe: "One thing is clear and beyond doubt: that there has been asignificant period of inaction. Who is responsible, is a different question." Vermawarns: "We are certainly not going to throw up our hands.... This is notsomething that happens every day. We are disturbed... and we can’t leave the matterat that. It has to be taken to its logical conclusion. We want results....The way theagency (CBI) has functioned in the matter does not match with the facts of the case...I amleft with the feeling that a lot more should have been done."
Adds Justice Barucha: "We are left with an impression that there has been anunexplainable delay. "
December 5, 1994: CBI Director K. Vijaya Rama Rao assures the court that he willpersonally head the hawala probe.
January to March 1995: The SC hears the case a few times and the Jains arearrested (on March 5).
March 27, 1995: The SC criticises the CBI for allowing two of the accused,N.K. Jain and B.R. Jain, to abscond and asks Rao to appear in person to provide anexplanation. The bench observes that "the officers investigating the case are not fitto hold their post". It adds: "If this is the way the CBI conducts aninvestigation, we have to consider assigning this case to some other investigativeagency. "
April to November 1995: Numerous hearings are held with the CBI, which now comes upwith evidence, and senior bureaucrats are summoned by the court.
November 29, 1995: The CBI files chargesheets against the Jain brothers and sevenbureaucrats before the court.
January 16, 1996: The CBI informs the SC that it has chargesheeted sevenprominent politicians, including three Union ministers and the leader of the Opposition.The court says it will brook no delay in the prosecution of the ministers and expressesconcern that the efficiency of the investigating agencies can be blunted "by someonein power". It says categorically "if the investigating agencies reportimpediments in obtaining sanction (for prosecuting the ministers), the court will stepin".
