Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Minister, after the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) forwards a panel, usually of three names.) Under the CVC Act and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the CVC has the authority of superintendence over the CBI in respect of anti-corruption matters. Inductions to the CBI of and above the rank of joint director will still need the CVCs nod. These are generally free of blame. But in the past, there have been a few questionable inductions and rejections of names suggested by the director, CBI (DCBI). It is strange that the latter has no untrammelled authority over what should be an internal matter. How can a director command respect if a few officers not of his choice are imposed on him and against his will by a CVC acting in concert with the government? There is now the added restraint on him in the form of requiring the Lokpals approval for effecting transfers of officers investigating cases entrusted to the CBI by the Lokpal. There could be a conflict here and also the growth of divided loyalties. The single directive An officer whom the director wants to ease out of an investigation or from the organisation itself of course for valid reasons can short-circuit the director and seek refuge under a Lokpal. This happens often with the executive (Department of Personnel and the Ministry of Home Affairs) sometimes interfering in matters that involve transfers. In the new order of things, a third player, namely the Lokpal, can indulge in mischief for a variety of reasons. A matter of anguish is the continued tyranny of the infamous single directive, whereby no officer of the Union government can be subjected even to a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) by the CBI without the nod of the Ministry concerned, except in trap cases, where an officer is caught red-handed accepting a bribe. There have been instances of injustice being committed to officers of unsullied reputation by the CBI. This is no reason why the CBI should continue to be weighed down by this harsh stipulation, which, incidentally, discriminates between classes of officers. (Those below the rank of joint secretary do not enjoy the benefit of the single directive.) The single directive has the potential to compromise the confidentiality of information collected by the CBI against an officer. When the officer had engaged in dubious transactions in collusion with or to favour a minister, how can we expect the latter to give the green signal to the CBI to go ahead with a PE? This is the most persuasive argument against the single directive, which has been incorporated into the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act and is therefore inviolable. This is why the arrival of a Lokpal may not materially alter the situation in respect of corruption in high places. A silver lining is the placing of the CBIs Director of Prosecution wholly under the control of the DCBI. At present, he is an officer from the Law Ministry, who owes his loyalties to the Law Minister rather than to the DCBI. The controversy over a Law Ministers alleged amendment of a CBI Progress Report to the Supreme Court in the coal block allocations case cannot possibly happen after the new law comes into place. This strengthens an incumbent DCBI who can rightly ignore the overtures of a meddling Law Minister wanting to bail out his government from a difficult situation. There are far too many grey areas in the new law for us to be able to predict whether the Lokpal will play an effective role. For instance, what will the relationship between the CVC and the Lokpal be like? There is scope for conflict between the two authorities when a CVC and the Lokpal refer the same matter to the CBI for inquiry. Both are statutory authorities, and may not always be expected to shed their egos. Where there is overzealousness on the part of either, the DCBI will be hard-pressed to please two authorities. The picture becomes muddier when you add an intruding Department of Personnel.
I had long pleaded for a Lokpal which would look after personnel matters of the CBI (such as inductions and transfers) and a Department of Personnel which merely took care of budgetary allocations to the CBI. In my view, the CVC is a needless appendage especially after the creation of the Lokpal that only stifles the CBI without adding value to the quality of its investigations. On the whole, the Lokpal cannot be viewed as anything but a cosmetic imposition on a CBI that is craving for autonomy without any great success. The commendable support to its cause by the Supreme Court is still in the realm of theory, with the Union government uninhibitedly rejecting all suggestions that the CBI be allowed to function unhampered by the executive. Against this backdrop, I am of the view that the Lokpal will have only a marginal impact on corruption in high places. (R.K. Raghavan is a former CBI director.)