Open Forum
New Delhi, 27 May 2013
Liberating “Caged Parrot”
FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY
NOT ENOUGH
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New
Delhi)
The Supreme Court’s very provocative dubbing of the CBI
(Central Bureau of Investigation) as a “caged parrot” repeating “his master’s
voice” cannot certainly be received as a compliment for steadfast loyalty by
the recipient of the comment. On the contrary, it is bound to be resented as an
insult to a public office irrespective of its relevance.
But, the humour, the indepth meaning, and the sarcasm that
can be read in this expression cannot but stimulate debate on the organization
and functioning of the CBI over the years. It is time to introspect sincerely
what went wrong and where, and what can be done now to restore credibility of this
very important agency of the Government of India for investigation of crimes.
The urgency to remedy the situation that has earned the
Supreme Court’s observation has been acknowledged by the Government – the
master – by a prompt response by constituting a GoM (Group of Ministers) to
examine ways of granting functional autonomy to the CBI. This itself is liable
to be interpreted as an admission that this agency has gone astray from its original
objective or raison d’etre and needs to be corrected.
A “caged parrot” is normally a pet of the owner - a proud
possession that is the owner’s pride and the neighbour’s envy. Once liberated from the cage, it will not
come back to the owner like a dog. It
may not even recognize or distinguish its erstwhile master(s) from others.
Shaped in its present form in 1963 on the basis of the
Santanam Committee Report, there has always been some controversy surrounding
the CBI. Its “caged” status and the faculty
of repeating “his master’s voice” are acquisitions in the course of its evolution
as an agency very much in use in Indian politics and public administration.
The origin of the CBI goes back to pre-independence era when
the British Government set up the Special Police Establishment (SPE) in
1944. It was designed to investigate
offences of bribery and corruption committed in various transactions related to
the Second World War, particularly those of the Supply Departments. Corruption indeed got immense scope for
expansion during War time on account of shortage and scarcity of many
goods. Black marketing also took roots
in India.
Corruption continued to stay after the War and took firmer
roots making it necessary to continue the SPE under a legislation – the Delhi
Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946. It was located in the Home
Department of the Government of India where it found its permanent
residence. Its functions have been
enlarged in course of time to cover all departments of the Central Government
and territories directly under Central administration.
The CBI in its present form was created after the
recommendation of the Santanam Committee constituted by the Nehru government to
study the extent of corruption in public life in India and suggest remedial
measures. A glance through the findings
of this committee reported in 1963 reveals the enormity of the problem corroding
public life and the absolute need for exclusive investigation of cases
involving various forms of corruption mainly in the form of illegal amassing of
wealth.
The CBI was envisaged as an investigative agency at the
disposal of the Union government. Its
charter enjoins the organization to investigate all cases of corruption by Central
government officials and departments, violation of Central fiscal laws, major
frauds in government departments, and public and private sector companies.
It could also investigate serious crimes committed by individuals
and organized criminal gangs, smuggling, crimes on high seas, and large-scale
cheating and misappropriation, etc.
As the scope of the CBI investigation gradually expanded,
the organization developed two wings – one for corruption cases, and the other
for investigating special crimes including economic offences which were rapidly
growing simultaneously almost as part of development process.
Electoral victory, political positions, and administrative
power provided opportunities for unethical practices as well as many facilities
for cover up and escape routes in many cases to the unscrupulous. An unholy
nexus grew up between crime-politics-administration, and the CBI should
normally jump into action to break this.
A conflicting situation has thus grown. A tool of the Government
has to expose truthfully the misdeeds of its own functionaries without fear or
favour. How to achieve this is the
central issue in reforming the CBI which is overdue.
The task is particularly difficult as a section inserted in
the DSPE Act in 2003 makes it mandatory for the CBI to obtain prior permission
of the Government to initiate proceedings against any official above the rank
of Joint Secretary. What is perhaps intended to protect civil servants from
frivolous investigations that would detract their concentration on work and
their duties and block innovative ideas for fear of misinterpretation may have
some deleterious consequences. It can
turn out to be a facilitator for alliance of political patronage and
bureaucratic skill for manipulation for “white-collar crimes” in an age of
corruption unless suitable safeguards are built into the mechanism and its
operation.
Practically, as an arm of the Government with no
independence in functioning, the CBI has to seek the permission of the
government for every step. This itself is a big hurdle in its autonomous
functioning. The bogey of CBI can easily be roused to bully opponents, coerce
allies, and subjugate its flock by any government in an atmosphere charged with
corruption all round. The situation is
similar to that of the police in the control of State governments.
Autonomy for the CBI is a key demand of Team Anna in pushing
the Jan Lokpal Bill. Autonomy here does
not imply lack of accountability to any authority, but accountability to law
and law only. It should empower the CBI
to register a case suo moto on the basis of information received by it and
initiate and proceed with investigations independently without any direction or
control by the Government. It follows
that its report is its own production.
Liberation of the CBI from the clutches of the Executive
wing of the Government is but one aspect of fight against corruption. It is much more than financial autonomy. This is not possible unless there is political
consensus in the country among all parties and political will to clean up
public life and public affairs.
Changes in the organizational structure and functional
autonomy by themselves cannot bring about miraculous results. For, the same
people have to work the new system.
Systemic changes have to be backed by high ethical and moral values,
emphasis on integrity, high sense of responsibility, natural adherence to law,
and propensity for objectivity and fairness in governance. Our education system
has to inculcate these human values. ----INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|