GoM should suggest comprehensive changes
Stripped of honour in the Supreme Court over its interference in the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Congress-led UPA Government has finally decided to reclaim prestige by establishing a Group of Ministers to suggest a roadmap for functional autonomy to the probe agency. If only the regime had thought about it earlier and taken hints from the directions the apex court had given way back in 1996 in the Vineet Narain case, it could have avoided the thrashing which it received in the court earlier this month. Well, it's better late than never. Union Minister for Finance P Chidambaram, who heads the GoM, and his colleagues in the panel, do not have time on their side. Because the next hearing of the court in the coal block allocation scam cover-up is scheduled for July 10, the GoM will have to report some progress by then to convince the apex court that it is serious about unshackling the CBI. Fortunately for the GoM, it does not have to begin from scratch; it has before it a number of suggestions that had been thrown up in the course of discussions over the lokpal Bill in Parliament and outside. In fact, the Select Committee of Parliament which had discussed the lokpal Bill has before it several ideas that can provide a good degree of autonomy to the probe agency. While the Government had then not bothered to incorporate many of them in the final version of the Bill, it should have a re-look at them now. Given that the issue of functional freedom to the CBI has been dragging on for years now and the time has come for comprehensive changes, the ruling UPA cannot get away with piecemeal tinkering. The draft law that the GoM prepares must take into account the opinions that have been expressed by senior leaders of the Opposition, including the need to give the lokpal more teeth. Else, the panel will end up with a draft that leads to further delays in legislating the measures.
So long as the prosecution wing of the CBI reports to the Government, especially in cases where arms of the Government or even Opposition leaders are being probed, interference will happen. It would be prudent for the GoM to consider the leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mr Arun Jaitley's suggestion that a separate directorate of prosecution should be created within the CBI to work independent of the investigative wing of the agency. To ensure that the prosecution director is not beholden to his political masters, he must be appointed through a collegium that comprises the Prime Minister, leader of Opposition in the lok Sabha and the country's lokpal. At the very least, this selection process will weed out elements that would otherwise be selected by the Government for dubious reasons. A fixed term for the director of prosecution will ensure that he does not function under the Damocles sword of being given the marching orders for not following the executive's dictates. To further insulate the director of prosecution (and indeed even the Director of CBI) from falling prey to political largesse, it would be a good idea to codify that neither director is appointed to Government-related posts after his retirement. We have seen how pliant officers get accommodated in Raj Bhavans and many Government panels soon after they serve their terms.