Delhi HC Finds CBI Reply Contained False Assertion, Orders Complaint Against Six Officers
The Delhi High Court has ordered criminal proceedings against six CBI officers for submitting a materially false assertion in a 2016 court reply.
In a significant blow to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal complaint proceedings against six of its officers. The court found that the agency had submitted a materially false assertion in a 2016 reply to a trial court, claiming that correspondence with a ministry was "underway" when, in reality, the agency was merely conducting internal deliberations.
Justice Madhu Jain ruled that the CBI's records provided a clear foundation for allegations of offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 191 read with 193 and Section 209. The court emphasized that an inquiry into these alleged offences was "expedient in the interests of justice."
The Deception Uncovered: Internal Deliberation vs. Official Correspondence
The controversy stems from a case involving former IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, who was involved in a disproportionate assets investigation. After Aggarwal was discharged in early 2016, the Ministry of Law and Justice advised that there were no reasonable grounds to pursue the matter further. This opinion was communicated to the CBI via the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on July 1, 2016.
When Aggarwal requested the return of seized documents, the CBI filed a reply on August 2, 2016, claiming that correspondence with the administrative ministry regarding further legal action was "under way." This claim was used to oppose the return of the documents, suggesting they might still be needed for future proceedings.
However, the High Court's investigation revealed a different story:
- No actual correspondence existed: At the time of the reply, no communication with the DoPT was actually in progress.
- Internal vs. External: The agency was merely working on an internal proposal to ask for a reconsideration of the Ministry's opinion. The court held that an internal proposal cannot be equated with actual correspondence with an external authority.
- Manipulated Drafts: The court placed heavy reliance on successive drafts of the reply. An earlier draft explicitly stated that the DoPT had turned down the CBI's proposal to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP). This factual statement was subsequently deleted and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence was "under way."
Six Officers Face Criminal Proceedings
The High Court identified specific roles played by various officers in the preparation and approval of the misleading reply. The court has directed the Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts to file a written complaint against the following individuals within four weeks:
- Sushil Dewan (then Inspector, who prepared the drafts and filed the final reply)
- Vineet Vinayak (who had a direct role and approved the final reply)
- Amit Kumar
- Raman Tyagi
- Prem Kumar Gautam
- Md Azad
The court rejected the CBI's defense that a subsequent reply filed on August 9, 2016, had "cured" the error. In fact, the court noted that the later reply admitted the proposal was only forwarded to the DoPT on August 8, 2016, thereby confirming that the earlier claim of ongoing correspondence was false.
By setting aside a previous order from the Rouse Avenue Courts that had declined to initiate proceedings, the Delhi High Court has sent a stern message regarding the necessity of factual integrity within premier investigative agencies.