Whatever the truth behind the purported contents of the visitors’ register at the Delhi residence of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, there is little doubt that the office is under judicial scrutiny for all the wrong reasons. For years, the politico-legal narrative before the superior courts was whether the CBI had enough autonomy and powers to combat corruption in high places and stand up to serious political interference; and whether the political executive had the will to stand by its premier investigating agency instead of keeping it as a ‘caged parrot’. The current proceedings in the Supreme Court concerning allegations that the CBI Director met persons linked to ongoing investigations into corruption cases, as well as some key political figures, have put the agency on the defensive. The court now wants the Director, Ranjit Sinha, to respond to the charges through an affidavit. Mr. Sinha’s reactions have not been convincing so far. Initially, he questioned the very existence of such a guest register, and later dubbed as fake the one presented in court by public interest petitioners. He later admitted to meeting some of those mentioned, but wondered what could be wrong if he met those aggrieved by investigations by officers under him. He questioned some entries — a point apparently in his favour being the mention of visitors on dates when he and his family were not in New Delhi — and complained vehemently about the alleged violation of his privacy through disclosures about his visitors. He unsuccessfully pleaded for a gag order against the media and got the agency to file a petition seeking action for perjury against the particular non-governmental organisation that raised the issue.
While Mr. Sinha is entitled to defend his conduct, he can have no legitimate objection to the raising of a larger issue concerning his apparent penchant for entertaining at his residence a significant number of guests who were connected with the subject of an investigation. If those with any information, representation or complaint about any investigation wanted to meet him, they should have met him publicly and officially in his office and the visits and representations should have found a place in official records. It is wrong at this stage to surmise that he had promised or discussed undue favours to those under investigation, or that he had violated the code of conduct for public servants. However, the office of the CBI Director holds a special place of significance and sensitivity in the investigation of the high and the mighty, and unrecorded meetings with influential persons connected with any investigation in the secrecy and informal setting of his residence would be entirely inconsistent with the conduct expected in that office.
