DC Edit | Karnataka reining in CBI may be good in long run
The wheel comes full circle with the Karnataka government withdrawing the general consent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing cases within the state. Karnataka was the first state to withdraw such consent when the then Janata government alleged bias in 1998 and set a precedent of sorts in taking aim at the federal structure of the Union of states that is India.
In the current political scenario, fraught with friction in Centre-state relationships, Karnataka is the eighth to withdraw such consent, the others being Punjab, Jharkhand, Kerala, West Bengal, Telangana, Meghalaya, and Tamil Nadu; except Meghalaya all states being ruled by Opposition parties.
The withdrawal of consent means the federal investigating agency would have to seek permission from the state government on a case-by-case basis before any probe, even if it is to do with investigating Central government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The removal of general consent takes away a major flashpoint between the BJP-led Centre and Opposition-ruled states and since the consent mechanism is designed to balance the powers of the Central agency with the autonomy of state governments, it ensures the CBI does not overstep jurisdiction without state approval.
The timing of the withdrawal does, however, suggest that Karnataka may be protecting its chief minister Siddaramaiah — who is to be probed by the state’s Lokayukta regarding a property assigned to his wife in Mysuru — from the CBI getting into the act and possibly inflicting on him the fate of CMs like Hemant Soren and Arvind Kejriwal who went to jail before obtaining bail from the Supreme Court.
There is no denying that the timing of arrests of party leaders and chief ministers like Mr Soren and Mr Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA Act interfered with their campaign-related work before elections. Furthermore, there is no denying the generally ineffectual investigation record of the Central agencies like CBI and ED leading to very few convictions since the CBI was set up in 1964 under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
The fear is the withdrawal of general consent might reinforce a sense of impunity in politicians who, when defined as “government servants” on assuming public office, can be probed and proceeded against for indulging in corruption. With investigative agencies like the police, the Lokayukta or the vigilance directorate being under the control of the state, it is only likely that they will not be allowed to probe netas and babus who are with the ruling dispensation.
The Supreme Court had commented that such withdrawal “is not desirable” while at various times accusing the Central agency of being a “caged parrot”. But the accusations of CBI being partisan have been more in the air since the Centre came to exercise greater power over Central agencies administratively as well as legally with the 2018 amendments to the PCA Act of 2018.
While courts are still empowered to institute CBI probes when they think the case warrants, the difficulty of putting up safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in any probe by Central agencies has proved to be so difficult in the current partisan political climate that it is best the country breathes without the fear of federal powers being misused. Inured as the nation has become to corruption in high places, it is best the fires of confrontationist politics of the time do not singe the nation.