Supreme Court orders CBI probe against Yeddyurappa

u00a0

The Supreme Court last week on the recommendation of a green panel sought a CBI probe into donations by the mining firms to an NGO owned by relatives of Yeddyurappa.

u00a0

The apex court's forest bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Swatanter Kumar had given time till Saturday evening to Yeddyurappa's senior counsel V. Giri to submit documents on court proceedings in cases recommended by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on environmental matters for a CBI probe.

u00a0

The court had sought the documents after Giri said that all the aspects on which the CEC recommended a CBI probe were already under investigation on the direction of a special judge. He said the CEC recommendation should not be acted upon.

u00a0

The court said if it had documents pointing to a strong prima facie case for investigation, it could not shut its eyes to these.

u00a0

The documents before it clearly pointed to the violation of the Karnataka land acquisition act, the court said.

u00a0

Giri said the CEC recommendation in respect of Yeddyurappa was similar to the one made earlier demanding a probe by the former Karnataka Lokayukta.

u00a0

The plea seeking a Lokayukta probe was quashed by the Karnataka High Court. The same issue could not be resurrected by another agency for investigation by the CBI, Giri said.

u00a0

The court was told that the country worked under a federal system and law and order was a state subject. The court could step in only if the state abdicated its responsibility.

u00a0

Reiterating the earlier observation made by Chief Justice Kapadia, Justice Alam told Giri: "Don't invite us to make adverse comments." He asked Giri: "Has the high court said that this matter can't be investigated at all by any investigating agency?"

u00a0

Justice Swatanter Kumar had said that all the issues raised in the CEC report were interlinked and had to be investigated.

u00a0

Chief Justice Kapadia had said: "If documents come before us, then under the law, we are obliged to hear the accused. (If we afford him a hearing) we would be setting a precedent that would be against the law and dangerous."