Court Clears Former Coal Bureaucrats in Mahuagarhi Coal Block Case

Key Takeaways:

• Verdict Summary

  • Special CBI Judge Sanjay Bansal acquitted former Coal Secretary H. C. Gupta, Joint Secretary K. S. Kropha, and K. C. Samria in the Mahuagarhi coal block allocation case.

  • The trio were part of the 35th Screening Committee that approved JICPL’s 2008 application for the coal block in Jharkhand.

• Court’s Rationale:

  • The court ruled that the screening decision was a collective exercise, and no individual member could be held singularly liable.

  • The allocation was found to be in accordance with existing policy and in line with Odisha High Court rulings—no evidence of favoritism or corruption was presented.

  • The roles of Gupta and Kropha did not require them to personally verify all details of the application; such verifications were outside the purview of the Coal Ministry’s top officials.

• Supporting Observations:

  • The Ministry of Coal’s internal records and meeting minutes did not flag any procedural lapses.

  • The responsibility to scrutinize application details lay with the Ministry of Power and the respective state governments, not the Coal Ministry.

  • The court criticized the CBI’s rationale of selectively charging public officials while overlooking similar conduct by private entities.

• CBI’s Allegations:

  • The CBI alleged JICPL concealed critical information about its joint venture structure, financial standing, and net worth, misleading the screening committee.

  • Former JICPL director Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and the company were found guilty of cheating and criminal conspiracy.

  • Sentencing for JICPL and Jayaswal is scheduled for 8 July 2025.

Special Note

• The Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling that cancelled several coal block allocations was based on administrative irregularities, not criminal intent.

• The judge emphasized that this civil ruling should not be interpreted as proof of criminal misconduct by government officials.

• The court also flagged an inconsistent approach by CBI, which blamed bureaucrats for lack of scrutiny but spared private applicants in similar cases.

⚖️ Broader Context & Impact

• The court reaffirmed the principle that collective bureaucratic decisions under existing policy frameworks cannot attract criminal liability unless specific fraudulent intent or personal wrongdoing is proven.

• This acquittal underlines the necessity for distinguishing between administrative decisions and criminal actions in cases involving public officials.