Laloo’s arrest imminent

Justice D S Dhaliwal, rejecting the bail pleas of Yadav, his Cabinet colleagues Bholaram Toofani and Vidyasagar Nishad, as well as former Union minister C P Verma, said prima facie there was a conspiracy behind excessive and fraudulent withdrawals from State treasuries relating to the scam. “I am of the view that prima facie the excessive and fraudulent withdrawals from the state treasuries could not have been possible without a conspiracy,” he said.

Yadav’s council Shashi Anugrah Narain this evening left for New Delhi to file an appeal in the SC for quashing the HC order.

Meanwhile, Central Bureau of Investigation sources today said that the investigative agency will await directions of the special court in Patna on the question of arresting Yadav.

Following the rejection of Yadav’s bail plea, there were three options before the designated court in Patna, which today took cognizance of the CBI charge-sheet against the chief minister in the conspiracy angle of the scam: to either issue summons, or bailable or non-bailable warrants against Yadav.The CBI will act on the basis of the process issued by designated court when it meets next, the sources said. The CBI had, on June 23, submitted the charge-sheet in the conspiracy case (RC 20(A)/96) relating to fraudulent withdrawals of Rs 37 crore from Chaibasa treasury by Animal Husbandry Department officials between 1993 and 1995. The special court, a day after filing of the charge-sheet, had refused to take its instant cognizance for want of certain documents which were made available to the court later.

Designated CBI judge S K Lal took congnizance of the charges against former Union ministers Jagannath Mishra and Chandradeo Prasad Verma, besides four IAS officers of the state in the case. The officials are: Mahesh Prasad (Science and Technology Secretary), K Arumugam (Labour Secretary), Beck Julius (Animal Husbandry Secretary), and Sajal Chakravorty.

Can a CM discharge his duties from prison?

Legal opinion on the options before the Governor in the event of the arrest of Bihar Chief Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav is divided. While most of the lawyers feel that invoking Article 356 imposing President’s rule would be a drastic step, there is disagreement over the course of action open to the Governor.

Senior Supreme Court advocate Rajeev Dhawan said, “unlike judges, a chief minister is not constitutionally protected from dismissal if he is incarcerated. Under these circumstances, the governor may exercise the extraordinary power to dismiss his chief minister but nevertheless ask the ruling coalition, which has the majority to elect another leader.”

According to Dhawan, the option of suspending the chief minister as in the case of a civil servant under the 48 hour rule cannot be exercised since there is no constitutional provision to suspend the Chief Minister.

However, for P P Rao, another senior advocate suspension of the Chief MiniSter is the only answer out of the present imbroglio. “One possible course open to the governor would be to suspend the chief minister and make the senior most cabinet minister and interim chief minister while requesting the House to elect a new chief minister for the duration of the period of suspension,” said Rao. A section of lawyers are also of the opinion that Yadav should step down as per the constitutional convention. Failing which the governor would have no option but to dismiss him as the power of appointment carries with it the power of dismissal.

As Dhawan summed it up, “something would have to be done if Yadav is arrested to avoid the laughable circumstance that a chief minister can discharge his constitutional functions sitting in a prison.”