Described as a ‘caged parrot’ by the Supreme Court, CBI opened its wings on Tuesday demanding the lion’s share of authority from the Government in financial and administrative functions in order to become an independent and fearless investigating agency.
Responding to the Government’s affidavit with regard to making CBI independent, the agency in its fresh affidavit submitted to court on Tuesday cited administrative and financial handicaps that were hardly addressed by the slew of legal amendments sought to be introduced to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by the Centre.
The recommendations proposed by a Group of Ministers that got the Cabinet’s accord recently had recommended a two-year fixed tenure for CBI Director’s and setting up a Committee comprising Prime Minister, leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of India to appoint him. The Government had also said CBI chief’s financial powers be made equivalent with head of paramilitary forces.
CBI responded by saying, “In the present arrangement, the administrative, disciplinary, and financial powers of Director CBI are limited and this impinges on his ability to ensure expeditious and complete investigation and high ethical standards among his subordinates.” Seeking ex-officio powers available to Secretary-level officer, CBI Director sought direct reporting to Minister handling Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT) and a budget to be separately put up through the Minister to the Department of Expenditure. In addition, the service of a financial accountant to assist the Director in financial matters was recommended.
“Financial and administrative powers are essential for the efficiency of the functioning of CBI and for insulating it from Ministry in its day-to-day functioning,” said CBI, which demanded that the Director’s tenure should be minimum three years. “A Director CBI who is dependant on Ministry for routine administrative and financial approvals is not best placed to take independent and objective decisions in crunch situations,” was the reasoning put forth by the agency.
The agency also rejected the suggestion of Government to bring the officers under the disciplinary control of a committee of three judges, known as Accountability Commission.
“Creation of an outside accountability commission will have the tendency of compromising discipline within the organisation as disciplinary power will vest outside, albeit indirectly,” the affidavit said. Instead, it sought to continue with the internal disciplinary mechanism presently in vogue.
Interestingly, the CBI did not oppose to Centre monitoring investigation of the agency under all other statutes except Prevention of Corruption Act. But it objected to the proposal of bringing CBI Director under the disciplinary watch of CVC. Referring to the panel of the PM, the CJI and the leader of Opposition that would appoint CBI Director, the affidavit suggested that even the removal or suspension of CBI Director for alleged misconduct should rest with the same panel and not on reference of CVC to the President, as proposed by Centre.
The affidavit also suggested empowering the Director to appoint SP-level officers (as against Inspector-level suggested by Centre) and to promote Inspectors to higher ranks. Other significant highlights of the affidavit included the agency’s demand to have a say in deciding sanction to investigate against higher level officials, which so far was not available to it. It proposed a three-member panel of CVC, Cabinet Secretary and CBI Director to decide on permission for sanction under Section 6A of Act within three months.
Further empowering the Director, the agency sought to vest in him choice of counsel to represent agency in court without awaiting approval of law Ministry, decide the course of investigation of cases without referring to Attorney General over differences with Director of Prosecution, overriding the clause of seeking state’s consent to probe officers of Central government working in states, and to decide promotions of Inspectors to DSP bypassing UPSC.