New Delhi: The hullabaloo over autonomy for the CBI, which reached a fever pitch in the wake of the Supreme Court’s remark that it was a “caged parrot…speaking in its master’s voice”, does not seem to have taken the agency in a better direction.
If anything, its masters have made it more than clear that it would not dispense with any of the controls it has over India’s premier investigating agency. At this stage, therefore, it appears that things have remained stuck at the doors of the Supreme Court itself.
The CBI got an unequivocal message that it would not be getting any new powers in the form of two statements— one by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, and the other by Union finance minister P. Chidambaram, who headed the group of ministers constituted to deliberate on the issue of autonomy for CBI.
The powers-that-be decided that the agency?is functioning adequately. It also ought to face the accountability commission because too much power without accountability would be draconian.
Addressing CBI officers, Chidambaram had said: “We have conceded all the powers that will give you (CBI) functional autonomy, along with investigative autonomy, but those autonomous powers must be exercised as part of the executive government. We cannot create more branches of executive government.”
A day before Chidambaram’s address, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, had asserted: “It is unfortunate that the debate on autonomy has acquired political overtones. What is almost as distressing is that sensitive investigations are increasingly becoming subjects of running media commentary, often on the basis of material that is not otherwise in the public domain.”
“Investigation agencies are a part of the Executive, and must function under its administrative supervision. I think it is very important to remember that under the law, the police enjoy complete autonomy in the matter of investigation of offences and no one, other than a superior police officer, can interfere with such investigation,” said the PM.
The Centre on August 2 opposed in the SC, the agency’s plea for more power to its director, and for increasing his tenure to three years. In the 22-page affidavit, the government also rejected the CBI’s opposition for an accountability commission of retired judges for the agency.”
The Centre, in its affidavit, said: “It is submitted that autonomy and accountability go hand in hand. The government is duty-bound to protect its citizens against misuse of power and arbitrary action by any institution. Authority without accountability will be draconian.”
“An all-powerful director of CBI without adequate checks and balances would not be consonant with settled Constitutional principles, and would always carry the risk of potential misuse and may not be conducive to fearless and independent functioning of the organisation at all levels,” said the Centre in its affidavit.
“There have been instances in the past where allegations of extortion and bribery leading to coloured investigation have emerged against some CBI officials. An external accountability commission of retired judges would help in furthering the integrity of investigation,” the affidavit said.
What is to be noted is that when the CBI was called a “caged parrot”, the background was not of a CBI official extorting money for coloured investigation. It came in connection with CBI director sharing the investigation report in the coal allocation scam with the law minister and other officials and “making corrections”.
The agency has given a point-by-point rebuttal of the Centre’s proposals on its autonomy before the apex court, strongly opposing the Centre’s suggestions on the appointment, powers and tenure of its director. It argued that the proposals of the Centre were in contradiction with the demand for functional autonomy and violative of principles of natural justice.
“The CBI is not asking for any additional enhancement of legal power to the director. All that is being asked is merely administrative and financial powers of the secretary to the Government of India (GoI). It may be noted that the CBI is in the grade and payscale of a secretary to the GoI,” explained a CBI officer.
Further, the CBI officials argue that functional and administrative autonomy does not even require “legislative process” and its need would be fulfilled by executive orders alone. With these arguments, sources said, the agency would push once again before the Supreme Court for its demand for autonomy and curbing interference in its functioning.
As things stand, the CBI top brass is also not happy with the recommendations of the GoM.
“The judgments in the Vineet Narain case (in 1993 when the SC gave guidelines which aim to insulate the office of the CBI’s director) were all founded on the principle that the CBI must function without any kind of political interference. This has been ignored by the GoM,” added another CBI officer. They are in favour of zero interference from government departments and ministries in the functioning of the CBI.
What also seems to have been missed by the government is the need for a separate legislation for the CBI. Recently, the Gauhati high court held the constitution of CBI as invalid on the ground that it was not constituted through an Act of Parliament. The Supreme Court has stayed the matter for the time being.
CBI officials said that the government is not clear on the issue. “The draft CBI Act-2010 should be turned into a law now. The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which governs the CBI’s functioning, is grossly inadequate to cater to the CBI,” said the official.
Former CBI director Joginder Singh, who has gone on record to say how political leaders tried to influence the investigation when he was in office, holds a clear view on how the agency should be allowed to run.
“Independence to the CBI should be given in terms of functioning. Since it is a premier investigating agency, therefore, the head of the agency should not depend on certain ministry for discharge of administrative requirements. Make it like the Election Commission of India or the Comptroller and Auditor General. Remove the system of seeking the permission of sanction for initiating action against the corrupt babus or politicians,” he said.
Working under the Prime Minister’s Office, the CBI has always been accused of being misused by political players for their own partisan ends, while crippling the agency in carrying out its functioning properly.
As is the case with the police in the states, it can be safely said the political executive will always be wary of loosening its control over the agency. The matter then appears to rest with the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it is up to the apex court to free “the caged parrot”.
