Prosecution Tears Into Evidence Presented By Vijay Mallya’s Defence 

London: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on Tuesday tore into the evidence provided by a political expert deposed by Vijay Mallya's defence, claiming that he had relied on flawed material to discredit Indian investigation agencies like the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Mallya's extradition trial opened on Tuesday at Westminster Magistrates' Court here with Lawrence Saez, a professor in the Department of Politics at the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) in London, taking the stand. Saez gave his expert opinion on the Indian political system as part of which he called into question the impartiality of the CBI and the appointment of its special director, Rakesh Asthana, in particular. Mallya's counsel Clare Montgomery took Saez through his written statement, which relied on a past Supreme Court of India ruling to describe the CBI as a "caged parrot speaking in its master's voice" and also memoirs of past CBI directors which detailed ways in which their investigation could be "interfered with".

CPS barrister Mark Summers, arguing on behalf of Indian government, took him to task on this aspect, stressing that the 1997 Supreme Court judgement he had quoted from had resulted in the creation of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which has "independent oversight over the CBI". "The commission does not feature anywhere in your report evaluating CBI's independence," Summers rebuked, also pointing to the annual report of the Indian Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which describes the CBI as a trustworthy "premier investigation agency" of the country.

He sought to discredit Saez's views in their entirety for not taking into account such sources and instead relying heavily on Indian press reports, including those claiming the appointment of Asthana as CBI special director was politically motivated. "You make a broad attack on the CBI and raise serious allegations about the character and professional integrity of its director, Asthana. People take experts like you seriously and would assume that you would not regurgitate press reports while evaluating your information," Summers said.

Summers referred to a Supreme Court order dated November 28 which had ruled that Asthana's appointment as CBI special director "suffers from no illegality" and that the news reports in the Indian media which had raised doubts about its legality were "factually incorrect". Saez insisted that though the court had "exonerated" Asthana, he stood by his view that there remain "serious issues regarding the independence of the CBI as a whole" and that he had only relied on news reports from highly regarded newspapers in India.

The trial, which opened on December 4, is aimed at laying out a prima facie case of fraud against Mallya, who has been based in the UK since March 2016. It will also seek to prove that there are no "bars to extradition" and that Mallya is assured a fair trial in India over his erstwhile airline's alleged default of over Rs 9,000 crore in loans from a consortium of Indian banks. The defence is going through a series of expert witness statements to establish that there are no grounds to force the UK-based tycoon to return to India to face allegations of fraud involving his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

PTI