UPA regime’s move to free CBI lacks sincerity
The recommendations that a Group of Ministers has made to revamp the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation need to be tested by one question alone: Will they free the probe agency of political interferenceIJ The answer to that is in the negative, and therefore, these recommendations, which the Union Cabinet has accepted, are unlikely to either satisfy the Opposition or lead to any significant shift in the blatantly partisan manner in which the CBI has functioned — targeting or letting off political leaders depending on the directives of the agency's political masters. Also, it remains to be seen whether these recommendations will pass judicial muster, because the Congress-led UPA Government has to present an affidavit to the Supreme Court on its efforts to free the ‘caged parrot’, and confront the petitioners who are fighting for the creation of a truly independent CBI. The GoM has suggested, inter alia, greater financial powers to the investigation agency, the constitution of a panel of retired judges to monitor the investigations undertaken by the agency to ‘ensure that probes remain free from any external influence' and a fresh mechanism to appoint the Director of Prosecution. But none of these measures addresses the core issue of freedom of the CBI from the Government's clutches. For such freedom to come, the supervision of investigation in cases that are referred to by the lokpal should firmly rest with the lokpal, and not with any arm of the Government. The Supreme Court alone should be the appellate authority in such cases. There is no need to create a separate body of retired judges to oversee these investigations. Besides, there is bound to be conflict on the procedure that is adopted to constitute this panel of retired judges. Additionally, the suggestion of having retired judges to monitor investigations promotes the undesirable system of handing out post-retirement doles to judges. The Government appears to have ignored the recommendation of the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha that the Director of the investigation agency be appointed by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, the leader of Opposition in the lok Sabha and the Chairman of the lokpal. There is no point in the Director of Prosecution being selected in a more inclusive manner when his immediate superior, the CBI Director, is handpicked by the Government — often on reasons other than merit — and is, therefore, beholden all the time to the powers-that-be.
That the UPA Government is less than keen on giving functional autonomy to the CBI becomes even clearer by its silence on another key recommendation that the Select Committee made: The panel of lawyers which appears on behalf of the probe agency should be independent of the Government and be appointed by the Director of Prosecution on the lokpal's advice. We have seen in the coal block allocation scam case, how Government lawyers have virtually colluded with Ministers in obfuscating material and even tampering with affidavits that were to be filed before the apex court. But for a vigilant media and a conscientious judiciary, they would have got away with their shocking act. Given this experience, how can the people expect bipartisanship from such law officersIJ