Friday, 10 May 2013
How To Rescue CBI From UPA's Fear And Favour Tactic
(Congress in Coalgate)
Article : Arun Jaitley
(Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha)
THE ECONOMIC TIMES, PAGE : 16
The Supreme Court in the Jain Hawala case made an attempt to liberate the CBI from political clutches. Its judgment in the Vineet Narayan case laid judicial guidelines that could ensure some element of autonomy for the CBI. However, the CBI in the last few years started enjoying more than a comfortable relationship with the UPA government. This relationship was based on the premise that the directors were appointed from amongst a panel prepared by the CVC and secretaries of the government. It was the Prime Minister who had the last word.
Governments preferred friendly CBI directors. The last three directors who retired from the CBI were all given post-retirement jobs in the government. One was appointed a member of the commission to review the Centre-state relations. The next one was appointed as governor, and the last one was appointed a member of the UPSC. Both fear and favour were used to control the CBI.
An officer of the law ministry is posted as director of prosecution. Convenient legal opinions were given by him. Even the director of prosecution, after retirement, was made a member of a tribunal. Law officers now have become a law unto themselves. They advise and appear for the CBI. The CBI under the UPA has a history of controlled and politically friendly investigations. A large number of investigations had a political complexion.
When it came to implicating BJP ministers or police officers of Gujarat, the CBI, in some cases, acted even without evidence. In a Rajasthan case where a former BJP minister was falsely implicated, the CBI's own opinion was that there was no evidence against him. However, a law officer (who recently resigned) literally intimidated the CBI through a letter citing judicial consequences, and the former minister was wrongly charge-sheeted. If the Gujarat riot cases had been referred to the CBI rather than a Supreme Court-constituted SIT, I have no doubt that the final reports would have been politically coloured.
This comforting relationship between the political executive, CBI and the law officers has resulted in a travesty of justice. When YSR Reddy was a tall Congress leader, the CBI looked the other way despite the enormity of his corruption. When Jagan Mohan Reddy parted company with the Congress, the CBI was let loose on him. The pace of investigation in the cases of the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party chiefs is in tune with UPA's attitude towards allies.
It is this very practice that the CBI followed in the investigation relating to the coal block allocations. The CBI, the law officers and the political executive did not think that there was anything wrong in conspiring to alter the facts contained in a CBI status report. The law minister thought that he represents the political sovereign and is, therefore, entitled to direct the CBI to alter the basic substance of its report. The "suspects", namely, the officials of the PMO and the coal ministry, were granted the privilege of correcting the investigator's report.
But truth has an inconvenient habit of leaking out. This is precisely what happened. The Supreme Court bench hearing the coal allocation case did not provide the government with a friendly wicket. So, we now have an opportunity to liberate the CBI from the political clutches.
The court has asked the government to communicate how it plans to make the CBI independent. I had suggested the following steps to the Select Committee that discussed the Lokpal Bill.
The CBI should have two wings. Director, CBI, will head the organisation. Under him, a separate directorate of prosecution should function.
The investigative and prosecution wings should act independently.
Director, CBI, and directorate of prosecution should have fixed terms and should be appointed by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha, and chairman of Lokpal.
Neither director should get re-employed in government post-retirement.
Superintendence and direction of the CBI in relation to Lokpal-referred cases should be with the Lokpal.
Lokpal must approve the transfer of any officer investigating a case.
The panel of advocates who appear for and advise the CBI should be independent of the government. They can be appointed by the director of prosecution after Lokpal approval.
I hope accepting these suggestions will go a long way in ensuring independence of the CBI.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/cbi-must-be-rescued-from-upas-fear-to-avoid-a-travesty-of-justice/articleshow/19978214.cms