It is sad but true that our premier investigative agency, CBI, is passing through its worst credibility crisis till date, with one former director forced to resign as member UPSC by the government and another facing inquiry from CBI’s former special director over whether he tried to derail investigation against visitors he met at his residence.
It is commonly believed that CBI under political pressure tried to nail Shyamal Ghosh, an ex-IT secretary a decade after his retirement. Ghosh, widely known as an upright officer, was given a clean chit by a CBI special judge in October with directions to the agency director to take action against the investigating officers, as the “charge-sheet was found to be on distorted and fabricated facts”.
Prudence requires that CBI, at the very least, make a conscious effort to come out of this “caged parrot” or “feral wolf” image and be perceived as an investigating agency that is independent, professional and insulated from political interference. Regarding its latest action against Rajendra Kumar, principal secretary to Delhi chief minister, nobody can make a case that he should not be investigated/raided/searched by CBI, as “law must take its own course” and “all are equal in the eyes of law”. The CBI had recently raided the Himachal Pradesh CM’s residence for his alleged indulgence in corruption. Arvind Kejriwal, who is leading the AAP, should adhere to “rule of law” much more than anyone else.
What, however, troubles people who look for neutrality in CBI’s actions are their timing and manner. The questions, which need pointed answers in this case, are: Since when was CBI seized of the case against Rajendra Kumar? What has CBI been doing since then? If the files/documents concerned were of other departments, why was a search warrant for the principal secretary’s office obtained? Did the magistrate while issuing search warrant under Section 93(1) of CrPC give reasons reflecting it? Why was the Delhi chief minister not taken into confidence before the raid?
It is also pertinent to see if CBI followed all the rules before raiding the office of the principle secretary. Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, prohibits CBI from exercising its powers and jurisdiction in any state without the consent of the government in question. If Delhi is a state, CBI couldn’t have acted without the consent of the government. As Delhi’s statehood and consequent powers and privileges have been matters of discussion at various levels, the position is a little ambiguous.
The Supreme Court has gone into great detail and passed orders regarding ways and means to make CBI independent and immune from political pressure. The DSPE Act was amended with effect from September 11, 2003, and on the same date the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act was enacted. Section 8 of the CVC Act rules that the commission has supervision over CBI insofar as it relates to probing offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This effort was made to remove the cage around the parrot. It is, however, time certain guidelines are laid down to also reduce the probability of the “feral wolf” being let loose on political opponents, inconvenient adversaries as and when the ruling dispensation decides. If CBI has to investigate thousands of cases and there are no guidelines as to which ones will be taken up on priority, the perceived bias would always create doubts about its independence.
What is being suggested is that in all cases where CBI restarts investigation after a long delay or inaction, a mechanism for scrutiny of such decision within or outside the agency must be set up. It must question as to why the matter was kept pending for long, and what new facts have come to light to restart raids/arrests.
If there are no satisfactory answers to these queries, the presumption would be obvious. In a nutshell, the discretion to put a case in cold storage or vigorous active investigation must not rest with a single individual, making him vulnerable to political pressure.
vimalkirti86@hotmail.com
Singh is a former IAS officer, and legal practitioner