New Delhi: A plea seeking a directive to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fresh case registration against former Union Minister Lalu Prasad and others in the ‘land for railway job scam’ on Tuesday was refused by the Supreme Court.

According to the apex court statement, the petitioner claimed to be a whistle-blower of the details relating to the scam and advised him to approach appropriate forum for the relief and the plea is not come into the category of the Article 32 of the Constitution through which an individual has the right to seek redressal for the violation of their fundamental rights.

A bench of Justices consisting AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said that the plea cannot be categorized under Article 32 and he has got the option to approach the high court with his grievances.

Petitioner Vankatesh Kumar Sharma’s senior advocate CU Singh said that the direction should be issued to constitute a SIT to request for information about the acts of commission and omission against the Director CBI and the director of prosecution CBI regarding the complaint of the petitioner of date April 19, 2017.

As per the CBI manual, the advocate said that the director is needed to include all kinds of allegations in the complaint case in the FIR but the averments with regard to “land for railway jobs” were not recorded in a deliberate attempt to avoid it and only the second averments regarding IRCTC scam was recorded.

“We are more liberal these days in entertaining petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. Why can’t you go to high court. Can’t the high court decide these issues,” the bench said.

Mr. Singh further said that there are some wider aspects which relate to the CBI director.

“Sorry, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. You can easily approach the high court with your grievances,” the bench said.

Attorney General KK Venugopal who was appearing for the center said that the CBI director is appointed by Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India and the person so appointed has preferably does not has less than two years tenure.

The arguments made by the Attorney General was countered by Mr. Singh and said that the contention is not on the appointment but the action of CBI director.

“The question here is can the CBI director violate the code,” he said and further said that while registering the FIR, the entire complaint needs to be exact verbatim.

The Attorney General said that the investigation into the IRCTC scam is now over and the accused, Lalu Prasad and others are presently in jail.

The reply by the bench was that if the CBI director has violated the code, then the petition can very well be entertained by the high court and even trial court.

Mr. Singh asserted that fraud has been already committed and the complaint was not reproduced as it should have been in its entirety even after lands were taken into possession in the name of sons, daughters to give railway job.

The bench completely dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner that he has the option of approaching the appropriate forum for availing remedy, if any.

You May Also Read: Congress To Launch Country-wide Protests Over Rise In Fuel Prices