The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will have a new interim chief, Rakesh Asthana , to steer it through what are likely to be difficult times. Mr. Asthana is not new to the fight against corruption, having handled a number of sensitive cases, including those against Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad. He may not be the senior-most officer in India among those statutorily eligible for the post, but he has the credentials to be confirmed as the permanent director when a regular arrangement is made.
However glamorous the job may be, being director of the CBI is to wear a crown of thorns. You are constantly in the public glare and under scrutiny by the media. Perched at dizzying heights of administration, you have access to the Prime Minister on a daily basis. Your relationship with the Prime Minister is delicate: you need to keep him or her informed of all the major issues concerning the organisation while at the same time be conscious of the fact that you are on your own while overseeing investigations. You are answerable to the law and the law alone.
The CBI requires a mature head. A megalomaniac can wreck the system and embarrass everyone by acting unilaterally and recklessly, which would be out of tune in a democracy like ours. Such a person nearly made it to the job once earlier. Fortunately, the checks and balances in our system prevented this catastrophe. However powerful a CBI director may be under the law, he or she would be ill-advised to defy the canons of democracy.
Undoing wrongs
Mr. Asthana has to unfortunately first concentrate on undoing the damage caused by a few of his predecessors. The Enforcement Directorate has recently reported adversely against two former CBI chiefs. This is painful to hear. Mr. Asthana has to take cognisance of this and take appropriate action. Only then will public confidence in the CBI as a fearless agency that will not hesitate to proceed against its own erring personnel be restored.
There have been many reports about dishonesty and harassment of the public by those at the cutting edge in the CBI. This is not a new phenomenon, but the volume and intensity of allegations of misconduct on the part of investigating officers has lately become strident. Mr. Asthana has his job cut out for him in this area. Stringent action against misbehaving staff in the agency will be in tune with the Prime Minister’s drive against dishonesty in high offices. There will be ample public support for this endeavour.
Criticisms of the CBI
There are two big sticks with which the CBI is beaten ad nauseam. The first is its vulnerability to political pressure. Criticism on this score cannot be dismissed as wholly motivated or as a manifestation of the crudity of politics. There is a measure of truth in this charge of politicisation of the investigation agency. However, less than 10 per cent of the cases handed over to the CBI have political overtones, and this is what gives the organisation a bad name. The new chief should have a team of reliable deputies who can ensure with a toothcomb that investigations are insulated from external pressures. This will go a long way in restoring the CBI’s credibility. Even under such a strict regimen, allegations may still float around. Even a fabled agency such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation was recently under fire while investigating cyber misconduct by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Such events can be disconcerting but they cannot be allowed to distract or disturb the equanimity of a CBI chief. Ultimately, it all boils down to honest and fearless leadership.
The second stick is the one that relates to enormous delays in concluding investigations. As one former Central Vigilance Commissioner put it, the CBI is a black hole. Nothing that goes in ever comes out of it. This comment, stripped of its light-heartedness, is valid, and is analogous to the situation that prevails in the rest of the criminal justice system. There is an obligation on the part of every CBI director to explore all possible avenues to speed up investigation. This is more easily said than done, but there are ways of making it possible. Taking up select cases is one way. But then there is no professional alternative agency at the Centre to which the less important cases can be diverted. The need, therefore, for expanding the CBI’s infrastructure, especially its manpower, is vital. The Prime Minister can help greatly in this area by injecting a liberal outlook into the Department of Personnel and Training that provides administrative support to the CBI.
The CBI is not really popular among the youth who are looking for Central government employment through the Union Public Service Commission examination route, other than those appearing for the All India Services, including the Indian Police Service. This makes a case for a fresh look at the service conditions for direct recruitment to the CBI. A lot has been done in this area over the years, but much more is needed. Traditional thinking should be shed and red-tapism has to be cut ruthlessly in order to recruit more and generously improve emoluments (outside the rigid government pay structure) of the eternally demoralised direct recruits. I would strongly commend the Central Intelligence Agency practice of going to campuses and selling the idea to our young men and women that a job in the CBI has its rewards as well as exciting challenges.
Dependence on State governments
Another great constraint on the CBI is its dependence on State governments for invoking its authority to investigate cases in a State, even when such investigation targets a Central government employee. Since police is a State subject under the Constitution, and the CBI acts as per the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which makes it a police agency, the CBI needs the consent of the State government in question before it can make its presence in that State. Such consent can be a case-by-case authorisation or a blanket approval of a class of offences. This is a cumbersome procedure and has led to some ridiculous situations, including the withdrawal of notifications of empowerment by some dishonest State governments. I cannot foresee any possibility even in the distant future of a constitutional amendment that places police in the Concurrent list. This is why many CBI directors in the past suggested the promulgation of a CBI Act that is on par with the Customs Act or the Income Tax Act, so that CBI officers enjoy independent powers of investigation — outside the CrPC — without having to be be at the mercy of State governments. A number of drafts for such an enactment are gathering dust in the Central Secretariat in Delhi. It is time to drum up political support for this crucial proposal. Why this has not found favour till now is perhaps the irrational fear that the CBI will become far too autonomous and powerful. Persons who peddle this argument obfuscate the truth that an autonomous CBI is not one that is devoid of accountability.
(R.K.Raghavan is a former CBI Director.)
