Various state departments are already passing the buck over the investigations into the illegal housing society with the ACB and the CBI pointing the finger to the state government

It is a case of adarsh (ideal) confusion. The Adarsh society scam that rocked the nation led to the resignation of Maharashtra’s chief minister (and appointment of a new one) and placed the already uncomfortable United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in a more embarrassing position. But despite all the uproar in the media and outrage in the public, a first information report (FIR) is yet to be filed. Yes, you read it right.

The divisional bench hearing on the Adarsh society scam, which was held yesterday, stretched the matter to another date in January. The day ended with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the state government promising to inform the court about whose responsibility it is to file an FIR—in case the CBI has not filed one already. While the reluctance can be understood on their part, considering the big names involved, it is unbelievable that the CBI cannot remember whether it has filed an FIR or not.

In the criminal writ complaint itself, the petitioner Simpreet Singh had mentioned that if confusion prevails over who is to investigate the issue, it will enable the culprits to take refuge in the loopholes. He had filed the petition in November and had urged the CBI to takeover the case since the matter is of national magnitude and  the army is involved,  and because the state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) will be under pressure by the big-wigs who hold important portfolios in the state government. He mentioned in his petition that though initially, he had tried to file a complaint with the state anti-corruption bureau, the bureau refused to register an FIR, despite the provisions of Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which obliges the police to register FIR at once.

The bureau, however, reasoned that it cannot do so because the CBI was already investigating the matter. However, the CBI stated that it was only doing a preliminary probe, and the matter should ideally be taken up by the state authorities.

The issue remains unresolved, with none of the agencies looking keen on taking on the responsibility. If the confusion over jurisprudence continues, the culprits will have a carefree time while concerned citizens continue to sweat.— Moneylife Digital Team