The CBI is again in the news. And once again for the wrong reasons. The 2G Scam Special Judge O.P. Saini’s indictment on October 15 that the agency had filed a false charge sheet against former Telecom Secretary Shyamal Ghosh and three telecom companies was worded in shockingly strong language. Dishonesty and malice are two expressions that come readily to mind to understand what the judge was aiming at. I wonder whether at any time in the CBI’s 51 years of existence, the agency had been so roundly accused of malfeasance and illegal conduct of such magnitude.
Compromised It is too early for us to examine the judge’s order critically and opine whether he was justified or not in his sweeping comments. At the same time I cannot believe that a judge of the standing of Mr. Saini would have taken such an extreme position without facts backing him to the hilt. His immense reputation induces a feeling that the CBI had possibly been badly caught on the wrong foot. Whether it was an action that reeked in mala fide or it was simply a gross mistake without any motive, the matter cannot remain in inactive isolation. It will have to be probed in depth, if only to salvage the organisation from the morass in which it finds itself. The judge himself has desired an enquiry into the conduct of the CBI officers concerned. There is no way anybody in government or the CBI can skirt this observation. Difficult days are therefore, ahead of the CBI whose image is already dented with an ongoing probe, at the instance of the Supreme Court, against one of its past Directors, on serious allegations of misconduct.The Special Judge’s adverse comments against the CBI have sparked off a verbal duel between Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and former Law and Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal. The latter has been accused by Mr. Jaitley as the person responsible for pressuring the CBI into filing the quashed charge sheet against Shyamal Ghosh and three firms, as well as against former Communications Minister, the late Pramod Mahajan. The alleged transaction covered by the investigation in question had taken place during Mahajan’s tenure. Mr. Jaitley is categorical that the charge sheet was politically motivated, and that this was orchestrated by Kapil Sibal, the then Law Minister in the United Progressive Alliance government. Mr. Sibal has promptly rebutted the charge, and has sarcastically advised Mr. Jaitley to concentrate on his current charge, the Finance portfolio.
We have no facts as yet to conclude where truth lies. The Jaitley-Sibal exchanges, however, once again confirm that the CBI becomes embroiled in a controversy every other day, because it gets caught in a political cross-fire triggered by sensitive investigations. The 2G spectrum cases are a proof once more that whatever be the quantum of ministerial dishonesty unearthed by the CBI, the intentions of the agency come to be questioned by the political party at the receiving end. The truth may be painful. The fact, however, is that the CBI and political insularity are poles apart, and there are no signs of this unfortunate situation changing for a long time to come.
All that has been said against the CBI is not the result purely of interference by the government and the political parties supporting it. The lack of professionalism and integrity flows from poor leadership as well. While a majority of the senior officers have been free from blame, it is one or two bad hats that have brought disrepute to the organisation, from which the judiciary and the common man expect the highest standards of neutrality and honesty. What is relevant here is the capacity of the Director to stand up to pressure from external sources to direct the investigation on desired lines.
Evidence in the files In the current controversy, Mr. Jaitley charges that the CBI had been forced to tinker with facts so as to indict Mahajan, Mr. Ghosh and others. This is a very serious charge that has to be substantiated on the basis of documentary evidence. The CBI has a reasonably foolproof file system in every case. This should contain the periodical progress reports drafted by the Investigating Officer (IO) and comments thereon by those in the hierarchy, that normally ends with the Director in sensational cases like the 2G scam. A study of the file would unearth any intentional and unjustified deflection of the investigation. A cover-up is very difficult in such cases. If the officers lower in the hierarchy had found no evidence against Mr. Ghosh and others, and if any senior officer had overturned such findings, there should have been clear notings to justify the dissent and the action to file the charge sheet that has now been demolished and quashed by the judge. The public expect high transparency in the process of finding the truth. I am sure the government will not disappoint them.
A serious charge has been publicly made against Mr. Sibal. I am sure he would like to clear himself of this embarrassment. Assuming that he did interfere and he forced the CBI to do what has been alleged, how does one establish his impropriety? No person in his position would ever confess to it. This is why I have always advised my officers that it is ideal to put down all facts on paper, which would speak for themselves in the future. Normally any ministerial interference, contrary to law, is oral, and immensely difficult to prove. The CBI Chief at the relevant time cannot now turn round and say in his defence that he had been bullied into filing the charge sheet that has now been nullified. If a civil servant succumbs to illegal oral instructions and gets caught, he has only himself to blame. No Minister, who had instructed him to do what is not sustainable in law, will now come to his rescue. This is age-old wisdom that can be ignored by an official only at his peril. Will future CBI leaders learn the lesson? I am not very sure, because the process of appointing the CBI Chief and his immediate leadership has still many holes that are exploited by career-minded officers to promote their interests.
(R. K. Raghavan is a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.)
