Open Forum
New Delhi, 23 November 2018
Future of CBI
A POLITICAL ISSUE
By Dr S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The Government of Andhra Pradesh has suddenly
withdrawn the “general consent” given to the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) for conducting their operations in the State. Hereafter, consent
of the State government has to be taken separately for each case. West Bengal Chief
Minister is fully in agreement with this decision of the AP government. It is
the first major collaborative decision of two principal members of election-eve Gathbandhan!
Had it been a genuine Centre-State issue or
normal administrative reform for better performance, it would not have made
first page news. But, the CBI is now a premier agency making news for many
right and wrong reasons and has earned a name as “caged parrot” not for
nothing. Further, corruption-related cases under CBI
investigation are growing day by day, making it the most powerful tool for its
masters and a tool to be blunted by prospective victims of investigation. The question of the position of political
parties does not matter.
If other States follow suit, the
investigative powers of the CBI will be limited to Union Territories and will depend
on the consent of respective States to enter into their territory. Recall, Karnataka had already withdrawn the
blanket permission to the CBI in the late 1970s and withdrew even a permission
granted for a case in 1998.
With growing corruption record and tightening
crime-politics nexus, the need is to strengthen the hands of investigative
authorities and ensure their freedom to operate without fear or favour, which
rules out pressure of any government -- Centre or States -- and from any party --
ruling or opposition.
Chandrababu Naidu justified his move by
holding that the CBI had been reduced as a tool for blackmail by the Centre, meaning
political misuse of investigative powers to harass opponents. But,
he has not come out with any formula to eliminate the scope for undue political
patronage to people and organisations involved in criminality and corruption.
As a result of his decision, it is found that
the CBI cannot investigate without State permission cases under the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988 and 63 other Central Acts, and several sections of the
IPC counted as 188 in Andhra Pradesh.
Some of the offences relate to serious
anti-national activities -- even waging or abetting waging of war against the
Government. The long list covers several crimes that shock the entire
nation. Theft of antiquities and ancient
treasures, hijacking, benami transactions, offences relating to drugs and
cosmetics, customs, atomic energy, gold control, foreign currency, money
laundering and many such serious offences require the permission of concerned State
Government for investigation.
Created as the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (DSPE) under an Act in 1946, the CBI was intended to provide for
a Special Police Force in Delhi for investigation of certain offences in Union
Territories and for superintendence and administration of the said force. Section
5 of the Act provides for extension of its powers and jurisdiction and Section
6 makes the consent of the concerned State Government mandatory.
In 1963, the Central Government created the CBI
by a Resolution, but no law has been passed. And so, it is the DSPE that is
functioning as the CBI. The SPE, the only investigating agency, is a division
of the CBI. In the absence of statutory status, the CBI requires the consent of
the State Governments.
In the early years of independence, State
Governments were keen on maintaining law and regulations as they always should
be and were expected to cooperate with agencies engaged in the investigation of
offences committed in their territories, remain alert to prevent any such
agency from failing in its duty, and not to block its route. But, in course of
time, political power itself is often suspected to have a role in commitment of
many offences, prevention of crimes, and in investigation and punishment procedures.
Hence, there is reason to read in the withdrawal of permission to the CBI, a
move to stall investigations in the garb of protecting the legitimate rights of
State Governments.
Union Finance Minister Jaitley responded with
a cryptic remark: “there is no sovereignty of any State in the matter of
corruption”. Whether the move of AP Government is motivated by a “fear of what
is likely to happen” or a desire to put road blocks in the functioning of the
CBI to spite its masters -- allies turned enemies -- it has raised a real
political issue. But, the long-term consequences of the move of Andhra Pradesh
will impact investigations of offences by high profile person in many States.
For the present, AP’s withdrawal of
permission is not likely to affect cases already under CBI’s investigation as settled
in Dorji versus CBI in 1994, which examined whether the consent given by a
State Government under Section 6 of the DSPE Act can be withdrawn. It was
decided that consent could be withdrawn but will not have retrospective effect
to cases already under investigation. The stand was reiterated in 2013.
Chandrababu Naidu’s move introduces no major
change, for hardly 10 States have given general consent for CBI investigation
in their States. However, High Courts and the Supreme Court can direct the CBI
to probe any case in a State.
The very existence of the CBI came under
judicial verdict when the High Court of Guwahati in November 2013, disposing of
a writ petition on the validity of the CBI, declared the Resolution that
created the CBI in 1963 as unconstitutional. It said the CBI was neither an
organ nor a part of the DSPE and could not be treated as a police force. The
court pointed out that the Resolution had not received the President’s assent
to be treated as a decision of the government.
The Supreme Court had stayed the judgement and
the CBI continued to function as before. But, there has been an opinion in some
circles that this agency should be made a statutory body with functional
autonomy. Interestingly, this rootless agency celebrated its Golden Jubilee in
2013.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
established in 1908, the principal investigative agency of the federal
government of the US, is responsible for conducting investigations in cases
where federal laws may have been violated unless another federal agency is
delegated that function by law or
executive order. It has jurisdiction throughout the country and need not take
the permission of State Governments for conducting investigations. However,
responsibility for law enforcement rests with States.
The action of both the governments of AP and WB
apparently pushed in the interest of State autonomy is in fact a blow to unity
of the nation. Unified Central investigations are required in many offences
that threaten the unity and security of the nation.
The real issue today is to seek ways of
promoting autonomy of the CBI in actual investigations while retaining its
place under the Union government. To present this as a Union-State
jurisdictional issue will not help strengthen policing. A law for constitution
of the CBI and for its functional autonomy is necessary in the interest of unity
and integrity of the nation, which cannot come without an effective agency to
investigate certain serious offences with adequate powers.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|