Bureaucrats freely bend the rules to please their political bosses because they know the latter will shield them from the law. In the process, good governance takes a huge hit
last month, the Supreme Court questioned the credibility of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s probe into the coal block allocation scam. It called for a thorough and qualitative investigation, after it noted that, “The heart of the report was changed on the suggestions of the Government officials… It is a sordid saga that there are many masters and one parrot. It needs to be ensured that the CBI functions free of all external pressures... If the CBI is not made independent, we will step in”. The apex court also said that “the job of the CBI is not to interact with Government officials but to interrogate to find the truth… CBI must know how to stand up against all pulls and pressures by Government and its officials”. Then, while commenting on the role of the Union Minister for law and Justice vis-a-vis the CBI, the Supreme Court said that while he may ask for a report but he cannot interfere in the agency’s probe.
An old saying comes to mind in this case: The devil can cite even the scriptures for his purpose. If a news report from a leading daily is to be believed, then the Group of Ministers (consisting almost entirely of lawyers) that is preparing a report on the issue of autonomy for the CBI that will be submitted to the Supreme Court will in fact vindicate the Government’s position that giving greater independence to the country’s premier probe agency will be unconstitutional. However, the arguments slated to be presented are going to be fallacious, to say the least.
Since the last few decades, Governments have been taking this stand that blocks real autonomy to the country’s premier probe agency. But one hopes the Government is fully aware that whatever the Supreme Court says, becomes the law. The opinion of legal luminaries, given in the past or present, ceases to be relevant. The Supreme Court’s wisdom overrules the wisdom of the eminent Attorney General of India even. Recently, the country’s top law officer had opined, “It is not open to the Central Government to constitute a CBI and confer on it powers which will impinge on all the powers of investigation of offences which are conferred to the State police.”
If push comes to shove, the Supreme Court may make a separate law for the CBI that will be applicable only to the Union Territories and extendable to the States with the latter’s consent. In any case, the CBI only investigates cases that deal with officials of the Union Government, apart from cases that the States request it to take up and those that the courts order it to handle. Having said this, though, it must also be kept in mind that not all Supreme Court orders are implemented in the manner that they should be.
For instance, on September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court had delivered a historic judgement instructing Union and State Governments to comply with a set of seven directives so as to kick-start police reforms. The court’s directives sought to achieve two main objectives: First, functional autonomy for the police through security of tenure, streamlined appointment and transfer processes, and the creation of a ‘buffer body’ between the police and the Government, and second, greater police accountability so as to enhance organisational performance as well as rein in individual misconduct.
Yet, almost seven years later, the police reforms ordered by the Supreme Court are still to see the light of day. This is despite longstanding public pressure and continuing poor policing levels. The need for reform is, no doubt, acute, especially since the archaic Police Act of 1861 continues to govern policing even though there have been far-reaching changes in governance. Without doubting the integrity of anybody, I must record here that there is a popular impression that an advocate of the state would never give any opinion which would be inconvenient for the Government of the day. This impression is quite possibly correct.
Back in 1969, when I was working as an Under Secretary-level officer in the Union Ministry for Home Affairs, a tricky legal situation arose for me. So, I rang up my counterpart dealing with the subject to get his opinion. He asked me what kind of legal opinion I wanted. I said that I naturally wanted an opinion which would support my case. He said that I should send him the file and he would give the opinion. Anybody with a modicum of common sense can guess the legal opinion I received.
The Government has essentially divided the bureaucracy into two classes. Those at the level of the Joint Secretary and above are like Brahmins against whom no inquiry can be started without the permission of the Government — forget about prosecution, which is required for filing a charge-sheet. But those below that level right down to Class 4 employees are like the Shudras, as no Government sanction is required to start any inquiry against them, as per the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003.
This distinction was ostensibly made to protect those who do ‘paper gymnastics’ to please their political bosses. A good example is the Government’s decision to turn down the CBI’s request to question a former Coal Secretary, in connection with the coal blocks allocation scam. This was despite the investigative agency reasoning that questioning the former Coal Secretary was vital since he held that position between 2006 and 2009, the period that now is under the scanner. But the bureaucracy protects its own.
In the meantime, corruption scams running into lakhs of crores of rupees continue to take place. It is a free for all lootfest these days. But the Government does not deal with the corrupt with a heavy hand. Instead, the Union Cabinet passed a resolution last month that effectively shields even retired officers. This makes one wonder if the Government wants to fight corruption or fight those who are fighting corruption. Perhaps, it should come out in the open and just abolish the toothless anti-corruption mechanisms it has set up.
When I joined the Indian Police Service in 1961, corrupt officials and dishonest politicians could be counted on one’s fingers. Today, the same can be said of upright officials and honest politicians. The Government regrettably has failed even to make a token start in fighting corruption. It is not that it cannot do it, but just that it won’t. The reasons are not difficult to guess.
Someone needs to bring to the Government’s attention what Thomas Carlyle once said: “Fool! The Ideal is in thyself, the impediment too is in thyself: Thy Condition is but the stuff thou art to shape that same Ideal out of: What matters whether such stuff be of this sort or that, so the Form thou give it be heroic, be poeticIJ”