The Calcutta High Court issued a formal admonition to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the ‘School Jobs for Cash Scam,’ urging decisive action against those implicated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: On Monday(11th March), The Calcutta High Court issued a rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), emphasizing the necessity for rigorous action against those involved in the ‘School Jobs for Cash Scam’. The division bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta, expressed its intolerance towards any form of collusion between officers and the accused, particularly after the judiciary’s efforts unveiled the corruption within the recruitment process.
The court’s frustration was palpable as it highlighted the agencies failure to invoke Section 7A (taking undue advantage to influence a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) against the accused.
Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)–
If someone offers a bribe or advantage to a public servant to influence them in performing their duty improperly or dishonestly, they can be punished with imprisonment for at least three years, up to seven years, along with a fine.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Urges Speedy Trial on Recruitment Corruption
“We will indicate, who are these officers who are going soft on these persons,”
-the Court declared.
Justice Bagchi’s remarks underscored the court’s dissatisfaction with the investigative agencies’ performance, stating:
“We have observed the proficiency of the investigative agency. The judge attempted to introduce Section 7A, a measure seemingly unfamiliar to the agency conducting the inquiry, despite being regarded as a premier anti-corruption agency. It is imperative to address internal matters and enhance organizational awareness before seeking external interventions.”
The bench also encouraged the CBI and ED to learn from countries like Japan and Singapore, which boast conviction rates in corruption cases exceeding 80 percent. This comparison serves as a benchmark for what the Indian agencies should aspire to achieve in their fight against corruption.
During the proceedings, the court addressed the bail plea of Kuntal Ghosh, a former leader of the Trinamool Congress (TMC), implicated in the scam. Despite arguments presented by Ghosh’s advocate regarding the absence of cash recovery in the CBI case, the court maintained that evidence from the ED case could be utilized as circumstantial evidence to demonstrate the ‘widespread cheating’ involved in the scam.
ALSO READ: Correctional Facilities|| Calcutta High Court Directs Reforms in West Bengal Jails
Justice Bagchi vehemently stated:
“Start your trial. Don’t allow these cases to linger and public memory fade out and the credibility of the entire institution to fight against corruption is put to mockery.”
This statement reflects the court’s urgency in addressing and resolving corruption cases to restore public trust in the judicial system.
Furthermore, the court’s dialogue with the advocate representing another accused, Niladri Ghosh, revealed a potential path for resolution. The bench suggested that Niladri Ghosh could turn approver, offering:
“Why don’t you turn an approver and give details of others working like you? Give evidence against the accused, we will consider giving you (bail).”
The hearing concluded with the court scheduling a follow-up session in three weeks, leaving the CBI and ED with a clear mandate to demonstrate significant progress in their investigations.
ALSO READ: “Separating a Child From Father Amounts To Mental Cruelty”: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Justice Bagchi’s critical observations extended beyond the immediate case, questioning the overall efficacy and direction of the investigating agencies.
“It seems the investigating agencies are not moving in the right direction. See Kuntal Ghosh, an accused in the case. You ask him how he made so many properties and so much money even though he has no source of income. Why are you not asking him? Instead, you are seeking more time from the court to attach more and more of his properties,”
– he remarked.
