Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Tuesday said the CBI has not stood up to judicial scrutiny when it comes to politically sensitive high profile cases.
“In a number of high-profile and politically sensitive cases the agency has not been able to meet the standards of judicial scrutiny. Equally true it is that such lapses may not have happened infrequently. Such instances reflect systemic issues and indicate a deep mismatch between institutional aspirations, organisational design, working culture, and governing politics.” Justice Gogoi said while delivering the 18th DP Kohli Memorial Lecture.
Given the intense scrutiny that working of the CBI is being subjected to, public perception of the agency must be of the highest degree. Any gap between public perception and the quality of institutional performance, would adversely impact the governance of the nation, which we can ill afford, the CJI said.
“Why is it that whenever there are no political overtones to the case, the CBI does a good job? A reverse situation led to the celebrated case of Vineet Narain vs UOI, wherein the SC expressing concern at the state-of-affairs, laid down explicit guidelines for protecting the integrity of the force. However, given that the superintendence and control of the agency continues to, in large measure, lie with the executive by virtue of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, the possibility of it being used as a political instrument remains ever present. I have no doubt that there is more than enough strength within the organisation to deal with any such situation,” he said.
Highlighting the concerns regarding functioning of the CBI, the CJI said constitutional and legal ambiguity surrounding federal institutions is not entirely unheard of, but lack of clearly demarcated spheres of functioning and overlapping areas of influence severely comprises both the integrity and efficacy of the institution. Under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, for conduct or continuance of investigation into offences committed with the territory of a state, consent of the state is crucial. Given vested interests or bureaucratic lethargy, such consent is often either denied or delayed, severely compromising the investigation.
“Additionally, a patch work of legislations governing the functioning of CBI adversely affects inter-institutional coordination, both horizontally and vertically. The result of multiplicity of institutions results is an aggressive competition for scarce resources and inter-institutional ‘turf-war’. These set of issues arise in large measure from lack of a comprehensive statute protecting the agency’s autonomy,” he said while advocating a statutory status for the agency.
The gap in workforce in CBI is both qualitative and quantitative. Such gaps exist not merely on the operational end but also on the command side with 15 per cent posts in Executive Ranks, 28.37 per cent in Law Officers and 56.17 per cent in Technical Officer lying vacant. Potential ramifications may compromise both the quality of investigations and the policy design, formulation and implementation efforts, he added.