Recent
events relating to the interference by the Law Minister and the officials of
the PMO in the preparation of the status report submitted to the Supreme Court on
the Coal Block allocation scam have reaffirmed the often repeated charge of the
Government interfering in the functioning of the CBI. In the last few years,
the CBI control has gradually moved from the Government to even the
functionaries of the ruling party. The CBI was an agency constituted under the
Delhi Special Police (Establishment) Act, 1946 as an investigative arm of the
Central Government. Its primary job was to investigate cases of corruption
against officials of the Central Government and other state instrumentalities.
By controlling the process of appointment, transfers and holding out
temptations for the future, the Government has frustrated all attempts to make
the CBI independent and autonomous. Following the anti-corruption movement,
where the demand for creation of the Lokpal was raised, along with two of my
colleagues Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy and Shri Bhupendra Yadav, I had submitted a
note to the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha on the issue of autonomy and
independence to the CBI. In the note, we had stated as under- “On the basis of
above we are of the categorical opinion that considering the enormous amount of
misuse of political clout the CBI has lost its credibility. The control of CBI
thus requires to be transferred from Deptt of Personnel, GOI to the Lokpal in relation
to all corruption cases which are referred to Lokpal. Alternatively, in order
to maintain independence of CBI and enable it to get immunity from political
interference, we make the following suggestions amongst others:- • The CBI will
have two wings. Director CBI will head the entire organization. Under him a
separate Directorate of Prosecution should function. • The investigative Wing
and Prosecution Wing of the CBI should act independently. • The Director of CBI
and Director of Prosecution should be appointed by a collegiums comprising the
Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha and Chairman of Lokpal. Both
the Director CBI and Director of Prosecution must have a fixed term. • Both
Director CBI and Director of Prosecution shall not be considered for re- employment
in Government after retirement. • The power of superintendence and direction of
the CBI in relation to Lokpal referred cases must vest with the Lokpal. • If an
officer investigating a case is sought to be transferred for any reason whatsoever,
the prior approval of Lokpal should be required. 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 obtaining approval of the
Lokpal”. However, the Select Committee diluted our suggestions and only the
following suggestions were accepted. 2 “Accordingly, keeping in view the
various suggestions that arose during the course the deliberations, the mmittee recommends as follows- i. The CBI
shall have a Separate Directorate of Prosecution under a Director, who shall
function under the Director of CBI. The Director of CBI shall be the head of
the entire Organisation. ii. Director of CBI will be appointed by a collegiums
comprising of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Chief
Justice of India. iii. Director of Prosecution will be appointed by CVC. iv.
Director of Prosecution and Director of CBI shall have fixed term, as specified
by the Government. v. The power of superintendence and direction of CBI in
relation to Lokpal referred cases must vest in Lokpal. vi. Officers of CBI
investigating cases referred by Lokpal will be transferred with the approval of
Lokpal. vii. For Lokpal referred cases, CBI may appoint a panel of Advocates,
other than the Government Advocates, with the consent of Lokpal”. The Cabinet
further diluted the recommendations of the Select Committee and three
significant changes have now been made. They are- a. A notice is now required
to be given to be delinquent public servant by the Lokpal before considering
the complaint against him. 3 b. Investigative officers can be changed by the
Government without the approval of the Lokpal. c. CBI Directors can be
reemployed in Government thus holding out a future favour to manipulate the
Director. The Government is not serious about the Lokpal legislation. The
suggestions made by me along with two BJP members are inherently reasonable and
will add to the autonomy and independence of the institution. In our
recommendation, we had suggested that the panel of lawyers who appear and
advise the Government must be independent. They must be appointed by the
Director of Prosecution in consultation with the Lokpal. At that stage, we had
not visualized this ugly battle between the Attorney General and Additional
Solicitor General. Yet, we were aware of the fact a lot of Government’s
political management in sensitive cases is being done through the offices of
the Law Officers. The stature and dignity of the Law Officers has been
gradually eroded. It has been compromised. Far from being constitutional
advisors to the Government or the court, they have become instruments of
lego-political management on behalf of the Government. Several Law Officers,
appointed under the UPA Government, have seriously compromised the dignity of
their offices. The upright ones preferred to quit than to continue. The present
controversy flags the issue in relation to the independence and autonomy of the
offices of the Law Officers as much as it does of the CBI. Since we live in an
age where institutions are being gradually eroded, it is necessary that unless
we are able to 4 reconstruct and rebuild these institutions, there should be a
panel of lawyers independent of the Government which must advise and appear for
the CBI. These lawyers must be appointed by the Director of Prosecution with
the prior approval of the LokPal. In most cases where Government or public
servants are accused, the Government cannot choose the prosecutors. The UPA
Government has denigrated the institution of the Law Officers. It is this
failing institution that has today embarrassed the UPA government. The rap that
the Government received from the Apex Court on this issue was well deserved.
The delinquent must be held accountable. This is an occasion where the
Government must display some sense of responsibility and accept the suggestions
which we made to the Select Committee on the Lok Pal Legislation. (Article
written on 30th April 2013)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment