Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 21012,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 21012,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20867
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br />While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.</p><p align="justify">This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.</p><p align="justify">While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.</p><p align="justify">In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law</p><p align="justify">Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;</p><p align="justify">On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.</p><p align="justify">If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 21012,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 21012,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20867
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br />While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.</p><p align="justify">This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.</p><p align="justify">While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.</p><p align="justify">In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law</p><p align="justify">Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;</p><p align="justify">On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.</p><p align="justify">If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f596157c0d8-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 21012,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20867,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 21012,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20867
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar&#039;s interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &amp;quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court&#039;s perusal.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &amp;quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&amp;quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &amp;quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha&#039;s affidavit saying: &amp;quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister&#039;s Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha&#039;s affidavit: &amp;quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&amp;quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court&#039;s written order did not repudiate Sinha&#039;s claim that the changes did not alter &amp;quot;the central theme&amp;quot; of the status reports.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &amp;quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br />While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.</p><p align="justify">This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.</p><p align="justify">While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.</p><p align="justify">In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law</p><p align="justify">Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;</p><p align="justify">On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.</p><p align="justify">If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 20867,
		'title' => 'Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
</p>
<p align="justify">
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
</p>
<p align="justify">
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
</p>
<p align="justify">
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.
</p>
<p align="justify">
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 21012,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 20867,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br />While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.</p><p align="justify">This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.</p><p align="justify">While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.</p><p align="justify">In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law</p><p align="justify">Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;</p><p align="justify">On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.</p><p align="justify">If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 20867,
	'title' => 'Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.
</p>
<p align="justify">
This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.
</p>
<p align="justify">
While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law
</p>
<p align="justify">
Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.
</p>
<p align="justify">
If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 10 May, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Even-PM-cant-interfere-with-CBI-probe-Supreme-Court/articleshow/19978778.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'even-pm-cant-interfere-with-cbi-probe-supreme-court-manoj-mitta-21012',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 21012,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 20867
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta'
$metaKeywords = 'Supreme Court,Central Bureau of Investigation,CBI,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India



While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India</div><p align="justify"><br />While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so.</p><p align="justify">This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing.</p><p align="justify">While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: &quot;This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal.</p><p align="justify">In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that &quot;PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009&quot;. This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: &quot;In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: &quot;we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law</p><p align="justify">Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made.&quot;</p><p align="justify">On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: &quot;Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant.&quot; Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter &quot;the central theme&quot; of the status reports.</p><p align="justify">If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. &quot;In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them.&quot;</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Even PM can’t interfere with CBI probe: Supreme Court -Manoj Mitta

-The Times of India While disapproving law minister Ashwani Kumar's interference with the coal scam investigations, the Supreme Court invoked a 1997 judgment to drive home the message that even the Prime Minister, who has administrative jurisdiction over the CBI, did not have the power to do so. This was one of the highlights of the written order released on Thursday of the three-hour hearing the previous day in which the government and CBI had been subjected to tongue-lashing. While recalling the norm laid down by the 1997 judgment in the Vineet Narain (Jain Hawala) case to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures, the bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said: "This Court noted that though the Minister who has been given responsibility for the functioning of the CBI has general power to review its working and give broad policy directions and he has also power to call for information regarding progress of the cases being handled by the agency, but none of these powers would extend to permit the concerned Minister to interfere with the course of investigation and prosecution in any individual case." The implication of this written observation is clear: that even the Prime Minister, who holds the personnel portfolio and is therefore responsible for the functioning of the CBI, does not have the power to interfere with the course of investigation. So the law minister Ashwani Kumar, who has no authority over the CBI, had no power whatsoever to call the meeting with Sinha, let alone seeing and making changes in the status reports meant for the Supreme Court's perusal. In a tacit reference to the significance of the status reports, the order pointed out that "PE 2 relates to allocation of coal blocks for the period 2006-2009". This period overlaps with the period when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh held the coal portfolio. The order added: "In the course of inquiry into PE 2, 11 FIRs alleging corruption and conspiracy against unknown public officials of the Ministry of Coal have already been registered by the CBI." The written order however left unsaid the extent of damage suffered by the CBI investigation due to the sharing of its status reports with the government. It merely paraphrased CBI director Ranjit Sinha's affidavit saying: "we find we find that draft status reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4 (preliminary enquiries) have been shared with the Law Minister, Law Officers and the two Joint Secretaries - one from the Ministry of Coal and the other from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and at their instance some changes have been made." On the nature of the changes, all that the order said was a reiteration of Sinha's affidavit: "Some of the changes made in these draft status reports are significant." Unlike its oral observations, the Supreme Court's written order did not repudiate Sinha's claim that the changes did not alter "the central theme" of the status reports. If anybody from the government was actually pulled up in the written order, it was the two joint secretaries directly concerned with the outcome of the probe. "In light of the position exposited in Vineet Narain, there was no justifiable reason for the two Joint Secretaries to peruse the draft status reports and recommend changes therein nor was there any justification for the CBI to allow these officers access to the draft status reports and allow the changes in the draft status reports as suggested by them."