The Maharashtra Government’s move in withdrawing the “general consent” given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe cases in the State is an addition to the bad precedents set in recent times by Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, mostly fuelled by distrust regarding the functioning and motives of the federal investigating agency.
The CBI, as per the CBI website, came into existence by virtue of a resolution dated April 1, 1963 of the Government of India under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 as it was felt that there was a need for a Central police agency under the Central Government, which is adequately enabled to “investigate not only cases of bribery and corruption but also violation of Central fiscal laws, major frauds relating to Government of India departments, public joint stock companies, passport frauds, crimes on the high seas, crimes on the airlines and serious crimes committed by organised gangs and professional criminals”. The mechanism at the CBI was further optimised by addition of an Economic Offences Wing by a Government of India Resolution dated 29.2.1964 and by addition of Anti-Corruption Division, Economic Offences Division, Special Crimes Division, Administration Division, Policy & Coordination Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory and the legal division was reconstituted as Directorate of Prosecution since July 2001 pursuance to the direction of the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narian and others Vs. Union of India.
It goes without saying that over the years, the Central Bureau of Investigation has evolved as a credible investigating agency, which is enjoying the trust of the people, Parliament, judiciary and the Government, despite allegations of partisan behaviour of the agency.
Even today whenever there is slightest cloud over the credibility of state law enforcement and investigating agencies, there is a public demand for investigation by the CBI. The organisation has come up from being an anti-corruption agency to a multi-tasking Central police law enforcement agency which has both capability and legal mandate to investigate and prosecute offences anywhere in India.
As such, till date, “offences under 69 existing Central and 18 State Acts, 231 offences under the Indian Penal Code have been notified by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act” as claimed in the CBI portal.
On many occasions, the State Governments have accused the agency of acting at the behest of the Central Government. The apex court has, on a previous occasion, also went on to call it as a “caged parrot” that sings to the tune of the Central Government.
The allegations are not entirely unsubstantiated, but there is an array of evidences to suggest that through the significant part of last three decades and even now, the agency has served as an agent of the Central Government and pretty much speaks its master’s voice when not monitored by the courts. This is especially so while it functions as an anti-corruption watchdog. The daily chores of the agency, be it enquiries, FIRs, cases, charge-sheets, all are conducted or made or withhold depending on the whims and caprices of those in power.
The ongoing confrontation between the Maharashtra Government and the CBI is nothing new but an extension of the perception that the States ruled by Opposition are victimised by the Centre or at least the Centre is using the agency as a weapon to intimidate these State Governments.
But this has, far from helping the agency, been denting its image.Despite the Narendra Modi-led Government’s claim and stance of assuring and reassuring “cooperative federalism”, the Centre-State relations have been degrading on many fronts. The Uddhav Thackeray Government’s decision on the CBI seems to have been motivated by a suspicion that the agency may take over the case pertaining to manipulation of Television Rating Points, which the State police is investigating. As previously, the CBI had undertaken the investigation in the Sushant Singh Rajput case from the Maharashtra police.
However, in order to ensure that transparency prevails in criminal investigation and that investigations are conducted in professional way, the judiciary at least should ignore the State Government’s reservations, if any, and order the agency to investigate a case fearlessly, especially when the Centre and the State are at loggerheads over criminal investigation; otherwise, it shall diminish the credibility and authority of the premier federal investigating agency.
Irrespective of all said and done, the CBI remains the epitome of fair probe and a signal of the Government’s intent and purpose to take any investigation transparently to its logical end.
This, in fact, is the strength of the agency; and the onus is on it to augment its strength and take efforts to keep its honour, reputation and autonomy intact.
(The writer is a legal and public policy expert and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law and Media Studies, at School of Mass Communication, KIIT University. He can be reached at sjyotiranjan3@gmail.com.)