Ranjit Sinha’s position as CBI Director flawed
However much to the contrary his supporters and legal counsel may claim, the fact is that Central Bureau of Investigation Director Ranjit Sinha has been asked by the Supreme Court to recuse from the 2G Spectrum case because his actions prima facie seemed to suggest of his efforts to “save” certain accused persons in the matter and “derail” the investigation. It is true that the apex court added it was not casting any aspersion on the Director, but this observation should not be taken as an exoneration. The Supreme Court did not want to sully the image of the country's premier investigating agency by using harsher language against the Director. The fact that it ordered Mr Sinha's recusal is in itself enough of an indictment. Unfortunately, an obstinate Mr Sinha does not see it in that light because, if he did, he would have to resign. But the legalese cannot take away from the complete loss of credibility which he has suffered. For the sake of the institution he heads, if not for his own image, he should put in his papers. After all, he has only a few days left to serve and he can salvage some prestige by leaving earlier than scheduled. He will have all the time thereafter to clear his name in the allegations that the opposing party in the court has levelled against him. In any case, given that he has barely 10 days before he retires, there is little that he can gain by remaining in a position which he has compromised through his conduct. If Mr Sinha's actions were above board, as he has been claiming, the apex court would not have asked him to stay away from the 2G Spectrum case. It is a censure that no self-respecting head of an investigating organisation will take without bowing out. The writing on the wall should have been evident to Mr Sinha in August this year itself, when the petitioner in the case had moved an application to seek the CBI Director's ouster from the 2G Spectrum probe, on the charge that he had bypassed the court-appointed Special Public Prosecutor in the filing of key affidavits. The petitioner had also accused Mr Sinha of getting an official involved in the investigation, transferred. These were very serious charges, and Mr Sinha had since then not been able to refute them with any amount of credibility or credence.
Then there has been the controversy surrounding the entries into the visitors' diary that is maintained at the Director's official residence. It has come to light that many of the accused in the 2G Spectrum case had met him at the residence, and some of them did so on dozens of occasions. This was clearly a breach of professional and personal ethics, and Mr Sinha has, not surprisingly, been unable to provide a justification for the meetings, though he tried to bluff his way out of the crisis. He also holds the dubious distinction of turning the CBI into what the Supreme Court had months ago called a “caged parrot”. Put together, his acts of omission and commission have got stacked up against him to an extent that his continuance in the top position can only be termed as disgraceful. It appears that he wants to somehow complete his tenure regardless of the dirt that he gathers over himself along the way and in the face of the fact that he is now a lame duck Director.