Supreme Court to hear CBI plea on Jharkhand Assembly recruitment scam on Nov 18
New Delhi, Nov 17: A hearing on the CBI’s petition in the Jharkhand Assembly recruitment scam case will take place on…
New Delhi, Nov 17: A hearing on the CBI’s petition in the Jharkhand Assembly recruitment scam case will take place on November 18. The matter has been listed before a bench headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had stayed the CBI probe while hearing a petition filed by the Assembly. The CBI has now approached the Supreme Court seeking the removal of this stay.
The case concerns allegations of large-scale irregularities in appointments made in the Jharkhand Assembly. A petition seeking a CBI inquiry was filed after the matter came to light, especially since a one-member judicial commission had recommended a probe and the then Governor (now the President of India) had also directed the Assembly Speaker to facilitate a CBI investigation.
Also Read- Jharkhand News: One dies, 4 injured in illegal mining at ECL Mugma in Dhanbad
However, instead of ordering a CBI probe, the Speaker constituted a one-member judicial commission headed by Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya. The stated purpose of this commission was to resolve legal complications that might arise during the implementation of recommendations made by the earlier Justice Vikramaditya Prasad Commission.
In its report, the Mukhopadhaya Commission rejected all recommendations made by the Vikramaditya Commission. It also dismissed the recommended action against former Assembly Speakers. During the tenure of former Speaker Inder Singh Namdhari, irregularities were found in 274 appointments in the Assembly.
Similarly, during the tenure of former Speaker Alamgir Alam, irregularities were detected in 324 appointments, with the Vikramaditya Commission recommending action against both former Speakers.
Also Read- Cold wave alert issued for 11 districts across Jharkhand
The Mukhopadhaya Commission, however, rejected these recommendations, stating that the issue did not fall within the Vikramaditya Commission’s terms of reference and therefore could not be accepted.
