The ruling party at the Centre has always misused CBI to settle scores with political rivals inside or outside the party. But complete autonomy without proper checks and balances will yield no result
The debate over the level of autonomy for Government agencies has been a major issue at different junctures in the political history of India. There are institutions that have been given ample autonomy by the Constitution of India itself, viz. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), Election Commission of India (ECI), etc. Still, they have been accused by the ruling political party or Opposition parties of indulging in political brinkmanship.
Nevertheless, the CAG and the ECI have gained some confidence in public as some of their bosses have been successful in refusing to bow under political pressure, albeit by forgoing to reap the post-retirement political benefits. Is it their autonomy that distinguishes them from the ill-named Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)IJ Who knowsIJ
A pressing need has been felt to make CBI more autonomous in the wake of allegations of its misuse by the party in power for political purposes. The raging debate on the alleged political interference has gained strength owing to the acquired ‘tainted’ status by the ruling party.
The Supreme Court in a recent case observed that the Government has been manipulating the apex investigative agency, and directed measures to make it free from the unwanted clutches of the Executive.
By its police nature and its constitution, the CBI has been working under the direct control of the Executive. But this didn’t make an issue, as did the allegation of interference in the day-to-day functioning of the CBI by the Government, particularly the Congress-led UPA.
However, it will be like speaking half-truth to allege that only the UPA Government led by the Congress has misused the powers of the CBI to grind its political axe. The Congress used its powers during its dominance at the Centre to settle scores with the help of the office of Governors in the States till 1980s, and a similar bid was made by the NDA during its tenure to throw away the elected Government. One may cite, at least, an instance of the RJD in Bihar that forced the President to ask the Centre to reconsider the decision as that looked politically motivated. It needs to be added that now there is a debate to change functioning of the CBI, but during the NDA regime, there were hardly any voice.
Exposing the misuse of the CBI by the BJP-led Government in the Taj Corridor project and Disproportionate Assets (DA) case, Mayawati claimed in the Rajya Sabha, “I feel it is important to share how the CBI was misused during the NDA tenure. The BJP at that time had put pressure of CBI on me. I would like to inform you that the CBI investigated all cases for political purpose…In 2003, the BJP said it was in favour of contesting election along with the BSP. I said we can form the Government but cannot contest elections together because of ideological differences. I refused to contest election and they said they will withdraw support. They did and I resigned as CM.”
The statement brings to fore the misuse of the CBI by the incumbent Governments at the Centre to settle scores with rivals either outside or inside the Government. There is no dearth of instances for the first kind of cases. To cut to size rivals inside the ruling party, then Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao allegedly let loose the CBI on rivals within the party in the Hawala case. There have been various other cases in which the role of the CBI has been controversial and has been questioned, viz. Sant Chatwal Case, Malankara Varghese murder case, Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 2G Spectrum, Coal Allocation, etc.
The Congress-led Governments indulged in more misuse of the CBI as they have been in power for longer period as compared to the principle Opposition party.
The CBI breather to Mulayam Singh Yadav in the DA case following his much-sought after support to flagship legislations proposed by the Congress president, and Jaganmohan Reddy’s relief from during-the-trial imprisonment does indicate that the CBI is being used as a political tool. Also Jaganmohan Reddy’s illegal investments were considered innovative by the Congress till he parted ways.
Nevertheless, is the cry for more autonomy the only way to overhaul the agencyIJ I don’t think.
Autonomy a solutionIJ
The political upheaval following Anna Hazare’s call for lokpal induced some hasty decisions by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Its recommendation to subject the CBI to seek approval from the lokpal even for filing chargesheets and closure/final reports stirred another debate whether this contradicted the objective of making the CBI autonomous.
The autonomy issue is quite controversial and sometimes undesirable. As an academic, one may observe the functioning of the University Administration that imposes its will on the academic fraternity, the students in particular and the public in general, without foreseeing the consequences of various policies affecting their future. For a simple instance, the universities across the country have been denying the Constitutional rights of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be appointed at different levels of teaching. This denial went on without any significant protest for more than fifty years as even the Delhi University just under the nose of the Central Government did not implement it till 1997, denying the rights to almost a generation in the name of “autonomy”. Recent instances of introduction of new pattern of educational system in the name of autonomy by some institutions reflect the same story of misuse of autonomy. Thus autonomy without accountability might mean denial and deprivation to some sections of the society in particular and the civil society in general.
While responding to the debate, the Government opined that making the CBI director all-powerful without proper checks would go against Constitutional principles. It would further complicate the matter as there will always be danger of latent misuse of such a status. Making the position of CBI director more powerful involves a risk, even a fixed tenure is considered to be undesirable as it could set the precedence for other similar agencies.
One thing that obviously emerges from the above discussion is that one may not disagree that the CBI has not been able to function independently. But one needs to bear in mind that the autonomy for the CBI is not just a responsibility of a party in power. It is a larger political question, involving the active participation of Opposition parties and the civil society so that in the name of autonomy the agency does not become a headache.
(Narender Kumar is Faculty, Dr KRN Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, and Formerly Professor and Head in Political Science, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Central University, lucknow)