By IANS,
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Thursday reserved its verdict on the maintainability of the central government’s application for recall of its July 4 order, by which it had set up a special investigating team (SIT) to probe stashing away of ill-gotten money to tax havens abroad.
An apex court bench of Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice S.S. Nijjar reserved the order after Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati told the court that the power to recall the July 4 order of the apex court were inherent to its power under the constitution.
The government moved an application seeking the recall of the apex court order pronounced by Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) and Justice S.S. Nijjar appointing a SIT headed by former judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy and former judge M.B. Shah as his deputy. Both Reddy and Shah are former apex court judges.
The apex court converted the government’s high level committee that was set up to supervise and coordinate investigations into money laundering into the SIT.
The SIT comprised secretary, department of revenue; deputy governor, Reserve Bank of India; director, Intelligence Bureau; director, enforcement; director, Central Bureau of Investigation; chairman, Central Board Direct Taxes; director general, Narcotics Control Bureau; director general, revenue intelligence; director, financial intelligence unit; and joint secretary, CBDT. Besides this, it also has the chief of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence chief.
Responding to the argument that July 4 order has attained finality and could not be recalled, Vahanvati told the court that the ?argument of (order attaining) finality could not be a ground to oppose the recall of the order?.
The attorney general said that the ?court can exercise its inherent powers to recall an order?.
Opposing the maintainability of the application, senior counsel Anil Divan told the court that the central government?s application seeking the modification of July 4 judgment and order was ?in fact an appeal on merit, disguised as an application for modification, is an abuse of process (of court) to defeat the public interest?.
Divan appeared for noted jurist Ram Jethmalani on whose petition the apex court had passed its order setting up the SIT.
Referring to the government?s contention that powers conferred on the SIT were unworkable, Divan said this involved the question of fine-tuning the things to remove difficulties and not abandoning it.
Assailing the application for recall of the order, senior counsel told the court that it was an attempt to prevent Reddy and Shah from looking into the relevant records and materials as the government has much to ?hide and protect powerful individuals”.
Opposing the maintainability of the government?s application, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade told the court that ?power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be exercised by the court only at the time of the rendition of the judgment and not thereafter?.
Naphade said that the apex court under the constitution had the powers to make new rules but this ?rule-making power does not take in its sweep the power to create a new jurisdiction to entertain cause or matter”.