Not ready to free the ‘caged parrot’, the Centre on Friday told the Supreme Court that it was not in favour to vest more financial, administrative or disciplinary powers with the CBI Director, lest he became “all powerful.” In doing so, the Centre rejected almost the entire set of suggestion made by the CBI for greater autonomy.
An affidavit filed by the Centre in the coal scam on Friday said the CBI Director’s financial powers were revised in July this year to bring it on par with the DG of CRPF. But the agency wanted to enjoy ex-officio powers of a Secretary with full financial autonomy and administrative powers to take decisions without being forced to go through its administrative Ministry — the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
Distinguishing itself from other police bodies such as CRPF, the agency had earlier informed the court that certain expenditures were unique to the agency for which it sought additional financial powers and enhanced budget. In the present setup, the CBI complained, that “Director CBI who is dependent on Ministry (DoPT) for routine administrative and financial approvals is not best placed to take independent and objective decisions in crunch situations.”
This has not only compromised with the independence of the agency but affected the course of investigation in high-profile corruption cases, the agency had contended. However, determined to keep CBI in chain, the Centre came out with some bizarre arguments. The DoPT affidavit said, “An all powerful Director CBI without adequate checks and balances would not be consonant with settled Constitutional principles and would always carry the risk of potential misuse.” It further argued that except for making the Director powerful, adding more powers won’t ensure fearless and independent functioning of the agency at all levels. The matter is expected to be heard by the court on August 6.
The DoPT refused to accept the CBI’s contention that it was different from any other police agency or organisation, with which the Centre sought to bracket it. Adopting this reasoning to deny agency’s claim for more administrative and financial powers, it said, “While considering the demands of a particular organisation, it has to keep in mind the issue of parity with similarly placed organisation.” By creating a new precedent, to be followed in the case of CBI, “it would create heartburn and dissension in similarly placed organisations,” the affidavit added. The Centre also rubbished the demand made by the agency to have disciplinary powers over Group A officers (DSP rank and above), arguing it could unsettle the principles of administration where the control was vested with the Minister-in-charge of the concerned administrative Ministry.
The Centre even brushed aside the request by CBI Director to have a say in grant of sanction against high ranking bureaucrats above Joint Secretary level, which would also involve Cabinet Secretary and CVC. “Inclusion of Director CBI in the proposed Committee would create conflict of interest” the Centre said, arguing in favour of the concerned administrative machinery to be the “best” judge in according approval for sanction for investigation or enquiry under Section 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Another notable recommendation of the CBI to be granted overriding powers on decision regarding prosecution of its cases was also shot down by the Centre. “Putting the Directorate of Prosecution (DoP) completely under Director CBI would compromise the impartiality of prosecution agency,” DoPT said. Thus, the CBI Director was denied to have a say in appointing lawyers bypassing the law Ministry. And in cases where a conflict of opinion arose with DoP on matters of investigation, the Centre stuck to its practice of seeking opinion of the Attorney General to minimise possibility of arbitrary action on part of the agency.
On demand of the CBI to be kept out of a proposed Accountability Commission --- a judicial panel to oversee complaints against CBI officials --- the Centre backed the agency. It also held that the opinion of outgoing CBI Director will not be binding while appointing a new Director and maintained that the tenure of CBI chief should be kept at minimum of two years as against three years proposed by agency. It said the CBI Director’s views were incorporated by the Group of Ministers before the Centre filed its affidavit in this regard before apex court on July 3.