CBI, the “caged parrot”, will not entirely be a free bird. The UPA Government on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it would retain superintendence over CBI investigation in all criminal cases except those falling under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In effect, the concern of the court with regard to insulating the CBI from political or external interference has hardly been addressed. The matter is expected to be heard on July 10.
Except in corruption cases, if the Centre’s hold on the investigation by the agency into offences under IPC would remain, then this would mean that Government’s monitoring would continue in the Gujarat riots cases, Sikh riots cases, Ishrat Jahan case and Sohrabuddin fake encounter killing.
Interestingly, no checks and balances too have been put in place to censure or penalise any unwarranted interference by the Government. This was also a concern of the apex court which was forced to call CBI a “caged parrot” in the Coalgate case where the CBI Director openly admitted to have changed material portions of the investigation report at the instance of the law Minister and senior bureaucrats of the Government.
Submitting details of the proposals cleared by the Cabinet to make CBI independent and autonomous as required by the Supreme Court, an affidavit filed by the Department of Personnel and Training said that except investigation into corruption cases, the Centre will maintain its hold on CBI investigation under any other statute.
This provision will form the new Section 4(2) proposed by the Cabinet to be added to the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act. Section 4(1) which deals with superintendence and administration of special police establishment, i.e. CBI, stated, “…insofar as it relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it shall vest in the Central Vigilance Commission.”
The affidavit further disclosed, “The superintendence of the said police establishment in so far as it relates to investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under all other statutes…shall vest in the Central Government.”
The bold assertion came with a rider. The later part of Section 4(2) stated, “Provided that while exercising the powers of superintendence the Central Government shall not exercise powers in such a manner so as to require the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate, or dispose of any case in a particular manner.”
To override possible transfer of officers handling sensitive cases in the middle of investigation, the Centre informed the court that henceforth transfer of officers handling cases being monitored by courts would be undertaken by the Director “only in accordance with the decision of a committee consisting of the Director and two senior most officers in DSPE.”