Kolkata: The Central Bureau of Investigation and other anti-corruption agencies in the country are staring at the predicament of “permanent interference” if a 2018 anti-graft law remains unchallenged, according to former CBI joint director Shantonu Sen.
Sen also said the CBI should reinstate the practice of having its own cadre of investigators, as those inducted into the probe agency from states are bound to be “conditioned” to interference.
“Anti-corruption agencies are now dependent on another authority for their right to investigate, whereas in law, the police should not be dependent on anybody to take up an investigation of crime because a thana’ (police station) does not have to seek somebody’s permission to investigate a murder or rape case,” Sen told PTI in an interview.
Sen, who is also an author and columnist, was referring to the insertion of Section 17(A) in the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) in July 2018, and later in 2021, the addition of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for processing of cases under the section.
“This section states that henceforth, no act of corruption mentioned in the PCA, except if somebody is trapped, will be enquired/inquired or investigated by any police officer without the permission of the appointing authority.
“So now, a police officer, in CBI or an anti-corruption agency, who was supposed to enquire into allegations of corruption and investigate that, cannot do it. This is unequal application of law” he said.
The SOPs under Section 17(A) came into force in September 2021. A central government notification states that the SOPs were introduced to standardise and operationalise procedures with a view to achieving uniform and effective implementation for prior approval processes under this section.
Sen, who also served as the OSD to Lt Governor of Delhi from 2007 to 2013, however, is apprehensive about the SOPs.
“It says that verification will be done by certain rank of police officers, as per their annexure and that verification, for instance, in case of a judge or a cabinet minister, will be conducted by the DGP himself. He will verify and ask for permission. Similarly, the ranks are decided for other cases. This is not equal application of law. And yet, nobody has challenged it,” he said.
The former CBI joint director said anti-corruption agencies are becoming less useful, as no public servant can now be investigated without the orders of the government.
“There was a perception, right from the 1970s, that the CBI is being interfered with. So, this interference is nothing new. The question before us is if this new law remains, the CBI and all anti-corruption agencies will be permanently interfered with. Should this not be challenged?” Sen added.
The letter was sent a day after Bragg’s office acknowledged that they had issued the first-ever indictment of a former president. Officials have also indicated they are working with Trump’s lawyers to negotiate his surrender. Though the timing of both his surrender and arraignment hasn’t been finalized, they are tentatively planned for Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the matter.
It’s uncharted territory for the legal system, the government and the country, which has never seen the indictment and prosecution of a former president. Though the precise evidence against Trump remains unknown, the case appears centered on hush money payments to a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, in 2016 to silence her allegations of a sexual relationship during Trump’s first presidential bid.
The indictment, which remains under seal, prompted a torrent of attacks from Trump’s allies, many of whom denounced it as a political witch hunt. While Trump himself has called for protests in the streets — and on Friday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) echoed that call — most House Republicans have instead vowed to train a microscope on the Democratic district attorney, requesting information and documents about the probe.
Bragg’s office used the letter to the lawmakers, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, to respond to those allegations of political bias.
“Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court and avail himself of all processes and protections that New York State’s robust criminal procedure affords. What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State,” the letter reads.
State judge Juan Merchan is expected to preside over the arraignment and may ultimately be called upon to preside over the criminal proceedings, according to a person familiar with the process.
Bragg’s office also used the letter to plead with Capitol Hill Republicans to encourage calm, accusing them of engaging in “unlawful political interference” in the same breath.
“We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference,” Dubeck wrote in the letter to Judiciary, Oversight and Administration Chairs Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).
“As Committee Chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” she continued. “Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the Office’s investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York State, is politically motivated.”
Trump dialed up his rhetoric Friday, taking aim this time at Merchan, the judge he anticipates would be presiding over his case.
“The Judge ‘assigned’ to my Witch Hunt Case … HATES ME,” Trump posted on social media, complaining about Merchan’s handling of the separate proceedings brought by the district attorney’s office against the Trump Organization, which Trump said Merchan treated “viciously.”
Bragg’s office suggested that the House GOP inquiries appeared to be functioning more as interference for Trump than as legitimate congressional oversight, a concern Dubeck said was “heightened” by some of the committee members’ own statements about their goals.
She cited Greene’s statement that “Republicans in Congress MUST subpoena these communists and END this!” as well as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) call to scrutinize lawmakers who are “being silent on what is currently happening to Trump.”
From a legal standpoint, individual lawmakers’ comments and motives aren’t typically given weight when a congressional committee takes actions. Trump routinely pointed to the comments of individual committee members’ plans to make use of his tax returns in his failed efforts to block Congress’ effort to obtain them.
Greene called for Trump supporters to gather Tuesday in New York, indicating she would be there herself. “We MUST protest the unconstitutional WITCH HUNT!” she tweeted. Her tweet was a departure from her reaction a day after Trump first suggested that he could be arrested, when she told reporters on the sidelines of the House GOP retreat that she would not be going to New York.
As of Friday, though, there were no indications of significant street protests or organized activities centered on the courthouse. Bragg arrived at around 7:30 a.m., amid signs of significantly heightened security, with little other movement aside from a large media presence.
In her letter, Dubeck also provided some details about the federal funding Bragg’s office has used in connection with Trump-related matters — money that House Republicans have suggested could now be under threat because of the indictment. Additionally, House Republicans received a second document on Friday detailing federal grant money the office has obtained.
None of that federal grant funding, she noted, has been used in the current investigation. She said the office has spent approximately $5,000 of federal funds — funds that the district attorney’s office helped recover during forfeiture actions — on expenses related to the investigation of Trump or the Trump organization.
“These expenses were incurred between October 2019 and August 2021,” Dubeck noted, adding that most were used to support Bragg’s predecessor’s successful defense of its probe of the Trump organization before the Supreme Court.
A spokesperson for Jordan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter from Bragg’s office. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y) said at an event on Friday that Republicans should “cease their intervention in an ongoing prosecution in a local prosecutor’s office.”
But House Republicans have already started laying some groundwork for a potential subpoena of the Manhattan district attorney, a move they haven’t publicly ruled out. They also appeared to make the case in their second letter to Bragg that they believe a subpoena would survive a legal challenge.
Comer, who noted that he hasn’t spoken with Trump recently, called the indictment a “political stunt” but said he needed more information before Republicans decided where to go next.
“I think before the next step we’ll have to see what, in fact, these charges were and then go from there,” Comer said in an interview on Friday.
Dubeck, in her letter, urged them to reach a “negotiated resolution … before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal prosecution.”
Wesley Parnell contributed to this story.
[ad_2]
#Unlawful #political #interference #Bragg #defends #Trump #indictment #GOP #attacks
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Kolkata: Former chief justice of India U U Lalit said the judiciary has faced instances of challenge and attempts at interference but dealt with these appropriately to ensure its independence.
He said in order to have a thriving democracy, one must have an independent judiciary because it is through dispute resolution that society is assured of governance by the rule of law.
“There are various challenges that the judiciary has to face today,” he said, asserting, “therefore, we have to be strong as a judicial fraternity We must bear every kind of pressure, onslaught or any kind of interference.”
Speaking at a symposium on ‘Independent judiciary: Critical for a vibrant democracy’ held by the Bharat Chamber of Commerce here on Saturday evening, he said there have been instances of court decisions subjected to executive interference, but these have been appropriately dealt with ensuring the independence of the judiciary.
The former CJI said attributes of independence of the judiciary are impartiality, fairness in action, reasonableness and complete integrity for the purpose of dispute resolution.
Noting that the “citadel never falls except from within”, the former CJI said this is the expression with which the district judiciary is to be protected.
Lalit said the district judiciary is not under the control of anybody except the high court in the state.
“All their postings, promotions, appointments and even transfers are supposed to be only at the recommendation of the high courts,” he said.
Holding there should be no outside interference with the functioning of the judiciary, he said a number of articles in the Constitution ensure there is no interference in the functioning of every individual judge or the judiciary in general.
“One way to ensure the independence of the judiciary is to have an atmosphere where the people responsible for discharging judicial functions must have a sense of complete freedom and lack of interference from any agency,” he said.
The ex-CJI said the shoulders of the judiciary are quite strong to deal with any kind of external onslaught from any force.
Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli said the independence of the judiciary is not just a principle but a moral imperative.
“The relevance of an independent judiciary cannot be overstated, especially in a country like ours which is not just a democratic republic; it has been described in the Constitution as a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic,” she said.
Justice Kohli said to discharge constitutional duties, the judiciary must be independent and impartial.
“It must be free from any external and internal influence,” she said, maintaining that judicial independence is not just a facet of the fundamental rights of citizens but also an essential condition for maintaining a vibrant and democratic social order.
She said the independence of the judiciary has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a host of landmark cases.
