Supreme Court asks CBI director to file affidavit on allegations against former Kolkata Police commissioner Rajeev Kumar

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director to file an affidavit substantiating the agency’s allegations that former Kolkata Police commissioner Rajeev Kumar had tampered with evidences in the Saradha chit fund scam investigation.

The Court ordered the CBI director to file the affidavit within two weeks and gave additional time for the alleged contemptors to file any reply before the matter is heard on March 26.

The Court today said that it was not satisfied with the oral submissions made by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and said the CBI director would have to put the allegations on record through an affidavit.

Also, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi asked Attorney General KK Venugopal whether the allegations of contempt were limited to the events of February 3. On that day, a CBI team had landed outside the official residence of Kumar, then the commissioner of Kolkata Police, on a reported “secret” operation. This was apparently to question Kumar who had investigated the chit fund scam. The state had not been informed of this “operation”, and the CBI team had been “detained” by Kolkata Police authorities, and released later. The CBI had moved Supreme Court the following day, on February 4.

AG KK Venugopal and SG Tushar Mehta told the apex court that the electronic data that had been found tampered with also amounted to contempt of court.

CJI Gogoi pointed out that the evidence tampering, as per the Centre’s claim, took place in June 2018, therefore why had the court been approached only in February 2019, after the events unfolded on February 3.

In reply, it was said that the documents were received by the CBI from the service providers in November 2018.

According to a report of Bar & Bench, at this point CJI Gogoi asked, “If what you are saying is correct, don’t you think it is serious enough for you to take the Court in confidence? If it is true, this is subversion of the rule of law and you are coming to Court only after the incident of that evening. Today we are not satisfied.”