New Delhi, July 15: The government today cited judicial overreach to challenge the Supreme Court’s July 4 order appointing two former judges to oversee the probe into black money stashed in foreign banks.

Ironically, the Centre’s demand for a review comes a day after the top court criticised those who raise “the bogey of judicial overreach” every time the courts step in on behalf of the silent majority to act on a public interest litigation (PIL).

A review petition is usually placed before the same bench that delivered the original order, and so offers limited likelihood of the ruling being overturned.

However, in this case, the government is banking on the fact that one of the two judges who passed the July 4 order has since retired. So the case may go to a bench made up by the second judge and another chosen by the Chief Justice.

Justices B. Sudershan Reddy (now retired) and S.S. Nijjar had passed the order on two PILs moved by lawyer Ram Jethmalani, former police chief Julio Ribeiro and others.

The order, being blamed on then solicitor-general Gopal Subramanium, brings the black money case under the apex court’s scanner in the same way as the 2G case that has caused the government much embarrassment.

The court has converted a government-appointed, high-powered probe panel into a special investigation team (SIT) headed by two former apex court judges, Justices B.P. Jeevan Reddy and M.B. Shah.

It has empowered the SIT with all powers to summon and examine evidence and witnesses and lodge cases, and asked the government to reveal the names of those show-caused and those against whom inquiries have been completed or partially completed.

The order slammed the government’s “evasive” and “laggardly” probe and rued the “moral compromises” by the ruling “elite” that had led to the black money problem. The bench just stopped short of calling India a “soft state” that had lost the moral will or authority to govern.

The government’s review application says the court passed the order without “completely” hearing out Subramanium. It says the former judges’ appointments as heads of the SIT were “without jurisdiction” and ran counter to the doctrine of the separation of powers.

It argues the court has impinged on the executive’s domain and “the well-settled principle that courts do not interfere with... (or) sit in judgement over matters of economic policy, which must necessarily be left to the expert bodies”.

The Centre has cited the court direction that the “SIT will report directly to the Supreme Court”, saying this excludes “the executive and consequently Parliament also”. It has argued that the court should have exercised “judicial self-restraint”.

It has also expressed displeasure at the “wide-ranging criticism of the state” in the order, saying “it is uncalled for, unjustified and made without any discussion in court or material therefore”.

The government claims that many of the court’s observations were based on incorrect information and objects to comments made against those who are not parties to the petition.