Thursday's Supreme Court order asking the Central Bureau of Investigation to go ahead with the probe into the 2G scam and to extend it to finding out how the whole matter was handled as far back as in 2001 comes as no surprise. There are a few significant features, either explicit or implied, to the court's directive. First, the plea for forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to continue with the CBI-initiated investigation has been rejected. This is most logical because of the enormity of the probe, which only an organisation like the CBI can undertake. The second feature is the obvious acknowledgement of the highest court's faith in the much-maligned investigating agency. This should come as a shot in the arm for the CBI, which has a brand new Director with a Himalayan reputation for sobriety and honesty. If he cannot deliver the goods, no one can at this juncture. This is an extremely sensitive investigation in which several persons in high places have something or the other to tell the CBI, either on their own or in response to questions from the agency. Papers available at the Prime Minister's Office may have to be made available to the investigating officer at some stage of the investigation. This is in the context of the allegation that the former Telecom Minister spurned the Prime Minister's wise counsel for fairness and caution in doling out licences. This could involve senior officials in that office deposing to the chain of correspondence and the responses from the Telecom Ministry. All this will require deft handling, and any heavy-footed work will only invite criticism of an agency that has always been the whipping boy to many.
In passing its order, the Supreme Court did not mince words about how the CBI should be absolutely professional. “Don't be influenced by anybody,” is its clear warning to the agency. This is tantamount to a direction that the investigators will have to be wholly apolitical and objective, and should not be overawed by any personality, however high in the hierarchy. This is the acid test that the court has prescribed for the CBI. This is something similar to what Chief Justice J.S. Verma told the CBI in the Hawala case in an almost intimidatory tone. The organisation rose to the occasion and came out with certain findings which resulted in some heads rolling.
This is the crux of the matter. Give the CBI enough assurance that it can function without fear and it need not be worried about the consequences of speaking the truth. It is only in such an ambience that the CBI can get to the bottom of the scandal. It has a number of officers who have the right investigating skills and can ferret out facts much needed to bring the offenders to book. They require not only a free hand, but also protection. Or else, they will go only half way.
This brings me to the most vital point, namely, the autonomy of the CBI. What is the point in deriding it as a handmaiden of the ruling party, if you tie its destinies totally to the executive? We, no doubt, need an accountable CBI that will not deviate from the law of the land and will not commit any human rights violation in going about its chores. At the same time, it needs total autonomy from the caprice and malice of a politically-oriented executive. Vested interests want us to believe that autonomy and accountability cannot go together. This is obfuscation of the most condemnable variety. The judiciary, despite all the setbacks it has suffered recently, is the best bet against a CBI that could act recklessly under political control. The commendable manner in which the Supreme Court has been guiding the spectrum scandal is proof enough that a judiciary-monitored CBI is the kind of mechanism that a nation battered by a tsunami-like wave of corruption needs now. Those who have an entirely different agenda and pay lip service to democratic norms will view such an arrangement, where the CBI is answerable only to the courts, as a dilution of executive authority that the framers of our Constitution did not visualise.
A desperate situation like the one we are now facing demands desperate remedies. And one such remedy is a CBI that stands by itself and derives all its authority from a statute passed by Parliament. I know this is a pipe dream. All political parties across the spectrum (no pun intended) want a subservient investigating agency that would not dare to go against a ruling party functionary when the latter transgresses the law. The Hawala case brought in reform in the form of a fair and objective system of choosing the right candidate for the position of CBI Director and giving him a mandatory two-year term. Let us hope that the spectrum investigation will, similarly, lead to a more far-reaching reform of giving statutory insularity to the CBI. This cannot happen unless there is the weight of media and public opinion backing the laudable move aimed at lending credibility to the highest investigating agency in the land.
(The writer is a former CBI Director.)
