The NIA is there to tackle organised inter-State and other crime. Strengthen it, empower it. Reform the State police forces. And simply abrogate the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 and let CBI cease to exist
These are bad times for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Suddenly, too many roofs seem to be caving in on what is supposed to be the country’s premier crime and scam busting agency. The rather sordid chapter that began with the Supreme Court loquaciously describing the CBI as the previous Congress-led UPA Government’s “caged parrot” for parroting the regime’s laughable defence of corruption in high places, is yet to come to a conclusion.
The latest episode to feature in this chapter is the revelation that CBI Director Ranjit Sinha has been meeting, over the past couple of years, people with known links to individuals and entities facing charges of corruption in various high profile scams like the Great 2G Spectrum Robbery and the
‘Coalgate’ scandal. The contents of the visitors’ register maintained by security personnel posted at his residence are now in the public domain.
It could be argued, and validly so, it is perfectly legitimate for the CBI Director to meet people who may be linked to cases being investigated or prosecuted by the CBI. This could be for two purposes.
First, the accused or their representatives have the right to present their case to the Director if they feel CBI officials have been unfair or refused to listen to them. Second, the Director could be seeking additional information or ensuring that investigations are on the right track.
Such meetings usually take place in the Director’s office at the CBI headquarters in Delhi. And Sinha’s predecessors would have also met the accused, those being investigated or their representatives. It is presumed that these meetings will in no manner compromise either investigation or prosecution. The CBI, thankfully, does not operate from behind an impenetrable iron curtain.
It would then be asked, then why is Sinha being pilloried for meeting people directly or indirectly linked to scams and scandal that are being investigated or prosecuted on his watchIJ The answer to this question could be found in the facts that have emerged till now. The meetings were held at his home, the visitors usually came to meet him late at night, and the same people met him several times.
What has also called into question the legitimacy of these meetings is Sinha’s shifting statements on the visitors’ register records that have found their way into the public domain. He initially questioned the authenticity of the details, then defended meeting these people, and later said it was an invasion of his privacy. In between, he offered to ‘recuse’ himself from these cases if the Supreme Court so desired. Why would he want to do thatIJ
That all is not fine is further demonstrated by his decision to change the agency’s stand on allegations against specific individuals and entities in the Great 2G
Spectrum Robbery and Coalgate scams. A scrutiny of the list of visitors and the dates on which they visited Sinha, and his subsequent decisions, prima facie does not reflect well on him. Unless he is able to conclusively disprove this conclusion, questions will continue to be asked. All that would not be flattering for either him or the CBI.
But the unfolding debate on whether the CBI Director displayed disregard for rectitude or showed little respect for probity that promises to get more vicious and acrimonious, cannot be restricted to Sinha alone. Irrespective of how this sordid saga of an agency run to ground ends it would be wrong not to raise related, perhaps equally if not more important, questions at this point of time.
Indeed, this opportunity for a larger debate should not be missed if we are to clean the Augean stables that the Government of India and its institutions and organisations have been reduced to over the past decade. Glossing over discomfiting facts will no longer serve any purpose; papering over gaping cracks are not going to save institutions from collapsing into rubble.
We should, for instance, ask if Sinha has proved to be a wrong choice for what is possibly one of the most sensitive posts, how come he was recommended for the job by the Central Vigilance CommissionIJ What were the criteria applied to select himIJ And, if they erred horribly, where did they actually go wrongIJ last, though not the least, what lessons have been learned from this mistake, which is not the first by any meansIJ
It should also be asked why is it that there is little or no talk of either reforming the CBI or disbanding it entirelyIJ Why must political correctness prevent any frank discussion and public debate on the CBI — why it was set up, what it has been used for, where it has landed and whether we need it at allIJ
Instead what we hear is politically correct bunk about the need to free the CBI from political interference and let it function as an independent agency. Truth be told, there is nothing called an independent agency anywhere in the world. It is very much the Government’s job to fight organised inter-State crime and bust scams and for that it needs an agency.
A dishonest Government would use an investigative and prosecuting agency for dishonest purposes. Examples abound. The decade-long hounding of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his associates like Amit Shah is not the only instance of misuse of the CBI for political purposes. We can go back in time to the days of Indira Gandhi and later Rajiv Gandhi. Nor is the planting of damaging stories by the CBI that ultimately turn up dead a recent phenomenon.
Here are two propositions. First, could we seriously consider adopting the American method of appointing agency heads through public hearingsIJ That would automatically shrink, if not eliminate, the scope for a wrong person being appointed for a big job. Second, could we simply abrogate the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 and dismantle the CBIIJ
Frankly the NIA negates the need for the CBI. If the purpose is to have a crime-busting agency which has jurisdiction across States, that purpose is amply fulfilled by the NIA. If the NIA requires further strengthening and empowering, that too can be done without any great effort. Also, if there are genuine police reforms and State police forces are trained, empowered, equipped and allowed to function without fear or favour, the need for the CBI is virtually eliminated.
Or we could let it be business as usual, indulge in stale rhetoric and allow the cycle of recrimination and counter-recrimination to continue unbroken. Being politically correct and toeing the line of least resistance are always the easier options. To do otherwise requires courage and commitment. If Modi Sarkar can’t do the right thing, nobody can.
(The writer is a Delhi-based senior journalist)