The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a closure report filed by the CBI last year and ordered a full-fledged investigation into a divestment process that was carried out nearly 20 years ago when the BJP-led NDA was in power.

The fresh CBI probe will look into alleged irregularities when the divestment took place in 2002 in the then public sector Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

Sterlite Industries, part of the Vedanta group, now enjoys the controlling stake in the company.

“We are desisting from commenting on some crucial facts and names of individuals involved, so as to not cause prejudice to the investigation of the matter,” a Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B. Nagarathna said on Thursday.

But the apex court has not stalled the sale of the Centre’s residual stake of 29.54 per cent in Hindustan Zinc through a public offer.

The fresh probe marks an unusual chain of events: a BJP-led government divests the stake, the CBI under another BJP government recommends closure of the inquiry after many years and the highest court of the land reopens the matter.

“Some of the aforesaid observations of the officials of the CBI, who recommended the conversion of the preliminary enquiry into a regular case, satisfy this court’s conscience for exercising its exceptional powers to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation into the matter,” the bench said in the 62-page judgment.

“A prima facie case for a cognisable offence… has been made out in this case and warrants the registration of a regular case. The registration of a regular case, followed by a full-fledged investigation must be conducted. This court shall be duly apprised of the status of the investigation,” the judgment added.

The court issued the directives while dealing with a PIL filed by the National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and certain other employees of Hindustan Zinc challenging the Centre’s decision to sell its remaining 29.54 per cent stake.

In an affidavit and a self-contained note closing the preliminary enquiry, the CBI had justified it on the ground that the special prosecutor, CBI head office, New Delhi, on July 31, 2014; the director of prosecution on October 16, 2014; and the special director on March 21, 2016, had stated their reasons for recommending the closure of the preliminary enquiry without registering a regular case.

However, the CBI additional director had on August 22, 2014, recommended the conversion of the preliminary enquiry into a regular case against certain officials and persons under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

According to the CBI manual, in view of the differences of opinion, the matter was to be referred to the attorney-general on October 17, 2014.

However, the Supreme Court said: “The status of this referral has not been alluded to before us, for determination of the closure of the preliminary enquiry.

“Upon perusal of the aforementioned reports and recommendations, it is our considered opinion that the disinvestment in 2002 evinces a prime facie case for registration of a regular case.”