New Delhi: It was still the early days at the CBI for former joint director Shantonu Sen when he encountered a high-profile case involving none other than Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. He was investigating fake signatures of Gandhi.
Determined to establish the truth, he boldly reached out to Gandhi’s secretary. The next morning, he was seated in her office, where she handed him six signatures. The case was swiftly resolved and the culprit prosecuted.
“And those signatures today lie in the CBI museum,” Sen narrated this story during the launch of Corruption, CBI and I, the book Sen co-wrote with Sanjukta Basu.
The event, held on 25 March at the India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi, was packed with attendees eager to hear Sen’s insights on corruption, his CBI tenure, and the agency’s state today.
High-profile investigations
One of Sen’s early successes was a case in 1965 involving a contractor fed up with paying commissions to receive his due payments from the Eastern Railway. Sen set a trap and caught the official red-handed. “It was only 10 rupees,” he recalled, yet the conviction stood firm across all levels of the judiciary.
This experience was just the beginning of his battle against corruption, which he soon realised was embedded in every sector of governance.
As Sen climbed the ranks, he encountered both groundbreaking cases and growing interference. “As long as I was an investigating officer in the lowest rank of the CBI, I did not face much interference. As I grew up, as I became an SP, then DIG, and then a joint director, interference was palpable, and one had to find ways to overcome that interference,” he said.
In Delhi, he was assigned to investigate the textile empire of industrialist Ghanshyam Das Birla for excise duty evasion. Sen said that the charge sheet in the case was filed in 1976, but the case never went to trial. Eventually, in 2009, it was withdrawn as most of the accused had passed away. “Interference in corruption cases is not new. It has always existed.”
Sen also investigated political figures, including Congress leader Kalpnath Rai, who was found sheltering criminals. While the lower courts convicted all involved, the Supreme Court later acquitted Rai, ruling that the law under which he was prosecuted did not apply to him. “If political interference wasn’t enough, judicial decisions also played a role in influencing the outcomes of corruption cases,” Sen added.
The infamous Jain Hawala case uncovered financial records implicating numerous politicians. Despite the evidence, the case collapsed due to weak prosecution. Sharing the inside details of the case, Sen told the audience that by the time the CBI was ready to act, “political interests had shifted, and a weaker case was chosen deliberately to be prosecuted. Naturally, it failed.”
Sen played a crucial role in anti-terrorism efforts, too. He spearheaded the investigation into the 1987 Punjab National Bank robbery, linked to Khalistan militants. The case was solved using an innovative witness protection strategy, wherein key informants were declared ‘dead’ to safeguard their identities.
This success, according to Sen, laid the groundwork for a federal anti-terror unit, after which the Punjab Cell of the CBI became instrumental in terrorism-related investigations, eventually contributing to the formation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA),” he explained.
Also read: Rajinikanth has Shivaji in his heart: Nitin Gadkari
‘Weaponisation’ of CBI
Shantonu Sen’s memoir highlights the systemic roadblocks in the fight against corruption. During the discussion, he spoke about how successive governments have sought to control the CBI. “Even today, the CBI cannot investigate without permission from the competent authority,” he pointed out.
Despite these challenges, Sen maintains that the CBI has remained a powerful investigative agency. “Many believe political pressure makes CBI ineffective, but look at its record—false prosecutions are rare, barring exceptions like during the Emergency.”
During the discussion following the book launch, members of the audience raised concerns about CBI’s increasing susceptibility to political influence. Some questioned whether the agency had become more ‘weaponised’ than ever before, used selectively to target political opponents of the ruling government. Others pointed out that while political interference in the CBI is not new, its scale and impact appear to have intensified in recent years.
The debate also touched on the question of whether CBI officials themselves bear some responsibility for allowing interference. An audience member asked whether investigators could resist wrongful pressure by delaying or obstructing politically motivated cases.
Sen acknowledged these concerns and said that while the CBI has faced persistent interference, it remains an essential institution. “The question is not whether we need the CBI. It’s how we ensure it functions with integrity and without fear.”
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)