A day after the introduction of the anti-graft Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011, in the Lok Sabha, sources in the Central Bureau of Investigation on Friday felt that the agency's autonomy of investigation had been “seriously compromised”.
CBI sources said the Bill did not seem to confer greater autonomy to the investigative agency—one of the focal points of the civil society's agitation for bringing about a strong, effective and credible Lokpal to tackle corruption in high places.
Flagging some of the concerns of the country's premier investigating agency, the sources pointed out that two key concerns related to the agency's autonomy and reduction in the number of authorities to whom it was required to report to.
The CBI must be granted full financial and administrative autonomy, the sources said.
“The dependence of CBI on the government in financial and administrative matters is the main cause for the public perception that it can be influenced by the government and that its investigations are not immune to the government's interference and pressure. The Lokpal Bill does not propose anything substantial which could have provided for the complete financial and administrative autonomy of the CBI, thereby contributing in dispelling this perception,” the sources said.
The sources said the Bill proposed that the CBI may be provided a budget charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. They said the CBI Director should be given administrative and financial powers on the lines of the Secretaries in the Union Government. “CBI Director should be empowered to induct officers up to the rank of Joint Director. He should also have powers for engaging special counsels and specialists of different disciplines,” sources in the agency said.
The sources also said that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which calls for obtaining sanction before proceeding against government officials of the rank of Joint Secretary and above, should be repealed.
“The DSPE Act needs to be amended to repeal this provision, as this is one of the major impediments in pursuing investigations against public servants of the rank of Joint Secretary and above,” they said.
The sources said that Section 23 (1) of the Lokpal Bill, which provides for functional autonomy for registration and initiation of prosecution, was applicable only for cases referred by the Lokpal. “Thus, for cases taken up suo motu by the CBI, the existing requirement of prior permission under Section 6A of DSPE Act remains unchanged,” they pointed out.
On the time-limit of six months and a subsequent extension by another six months for the completion of probe for Lokpal-referred cases, the sources felt that the limit should be increased as it was “unrealistic”. They said that in many cases the probe was complicated and voluminous. Delaying factors were a stay on investigation by the court, delay in getting expert opinions or absconding accused persons and extension of investigation to foreign soil.
“There is a need to have flexibility regarding the timeframe for completing investigations. This provision may be amended to provide a time-limit for completing the investigation within a year with a provision for further extension by Lokpal on a case-to-case basis,” the sources said.
The sources said the Bill envisaged reporting by the CBI to the Lokpal, the Central Vigilance Commission, the Department of Personnel and Training, and the Ministries of Law and Home.
“Instead of gaining any functional autonomy, CBI would now have too many superior authorities to which it should report. This multiplicity of reporting would be a grave impediment to effective and efficient discharge of duties by the CBI. This multiplicity of supervision can be taken care of only by providing more financial, administrative and legal autonomy to the CBI. The Lokpal alone should exercise general superintendence in cases referred by them,” the sources said.
The sources sought protection for police powers to decide the outcome of investigation and file police report before the court. They said Section 20 (7) of the Lokpal Bill provided for the extending of police powers to persons who are not police officers, who would be authorised to take a final decision after investigation and filing of police report in the competent court.
“This is against the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr PC. In any case, the provisions of Section 173 of the Cr. PC should not be dispensed with. The investigation agencies, including the CBI, must continue to exercise full powers to take a final decision and file a police report before the competent court. The process of investigation, right from registration of FIR till filing of police report, is one single continuous process and a prerogative of only the police, and the integrity of which needs to be protected at all times to ensure quality and fair investigation,” the sources said.
Citing a judgement of the Supreme Court in 1968, the sources said the police, and no other authority, should be entitled to forming the final decision in an investigation.
The sources said the investigation agency could give a status report to the Lokpal/CVC on the outcome of investigation in respect of Lokpal/CVC-referred matters, as was being done currently in cases referred to the CBI by the courts. Further, they said, a provision could be incorporated to the effect that no court shall take cognisance of any charge sheet against a public servant in a case referred by the Lokpal/CVC, except with the previous sanction of the Lokpal/CVC.
