Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the CBI should be given the statutory status similar to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He said the CBI has failed to meet the ‘standards of judicial scrutiny in high-profile and politically sensitive cases’, and the executive’s control makes it susceptible to be used as a ‘political instrument’.
ThePrint asks: Is CAG the right model to make CBI more independent and efficient?
Investigating agencies like the CBI must be set free from political interference
Ranjit Sinha
Former CBI Director
CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s idea is good but the important question is whether the proposed arrangement will meet people’s aspirations. By and large, the CBI has been investigating non-political cases to people’s satisfaction. However, the problem lies in cases that have political ramifications.
The CAG itself had faced criticism when it was dealing with the 2G and the Coal scams. It is important to note that even the constitutional post of governor is not above reproach. What is truly required is the combination of proper selection of manpower and use of scientific methods in investigations to make sure that the investigation process is smooth.
One must realise that unless we insulate the CID units in every state from political interference, an efficient justice delivery system will always remain a pipe dream. This is because it’s the CID that deals with majority of the criminal cases. The need of the hour is to ensure that investigating agencies are free from political interference.
Statutory status for CBI will require constitutional amendment, which will be a difficult task
N.R. Wasan
Former Director General, Bureau of police research and development
Before we debate whether the CAG’s statutory status is the right model to make the CBI more independent and efficient, we should understand that any such change will require a constitutional amendment. And this will be a difficult and challenging task.
On Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s statement that the CBI should be given statutory authority like the CAG’s, we should realise that more than the agency, it is the officers who are key to maintaining its autonomy. Even now, the CBI is legally accountable. If officers do their work honestly and professionally, then the integrity of the institution will automatically be maintained.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that the CBI will be more independent or efficient if it gets statutory authority like the CAG, which has often been accused of toeing the line of the Centre. So, any model applied to an organisation is made successful only by the people who work for it.
Every organisation requires checks and balances and an investigating agency like the CBI needs it even more. Irrespective of the model adopted, there needs to be a system in place to monitor the agency and prevent any excesses.
Also read: ‘CBI needs greater autonomy to be more effective’: Read full text of CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s speech
CAG-like statutory authority to CBI will backfire. Both have different functions
Satish Chandra
Retired High Court judge
It is not possible for the CBI to follow the CAG model because the investigating agency has to be necessarily controlled and only the executive can do that. While making a comparison between the CBI and the CAG, it is important to understand that the CAG does not conduct any investigation of its own and only presents reports to the government.
The CBI, on the other hand, is an investigating agency that often handles cases involving people’s lives and their liberties. Since the agency has the power to take anyone into custody, including politicians and government officials,giving it the status of statutory authority will definitely result in this power being misused. After all, absolute power corrupts.
Moreover, in the past, we have seen instances of CBI infighting. For instance, when its former director Alok Verma and his deputy Rakesh Asthana accused each other of corruption. It took National Security Adviser Ajit Doval to intervene and set things right. While CJI Ranjan Gogoi may suggest that the CBI be given statutory authority similar to CAG’s, in practice this is bound to backfire.
Also read: CBI has failed to meet standards of judicial scrutiny in politically sensitive cases: CJI Gogoi
Not system’s fault if CBI doesn’t utilise the autonomy it gets under CrPC to probe without restriction
Vappala Balachandran
Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat
I do not support the idea that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be given the statutory status like the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). I don’t believe the CAG is the right model for the investigating agency. This is mainly because the CAG does not have the power to conduct investigations and arrest people.
Most of the complaints against the CBI are about the agency conducting investigations under political pressure. In my view, these involve human rights violations. Getting relief from courts can take time. “The CBI cannot be given unbridled power as an unruly horse is a dangerous thing,” the Supreme Court had observed in May 2013.
Second, the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the CBI sufficient autonomy to investigate without any restrictions. That the agency has not utilised this provision and kowtowed to politicians is not a fault of the system.
Third, in countries like the US or the UK, investigating agencies do not enjoy constitutional status like the CBI. For instance, the FBI works under the Attorney General, and has to obtain court orders for surveillance. It also has to obtain clearance from the Director of National Intelligence to process terrorism-related intelligence inputs. Also, there is a President-appointed Inspector General to ensure transparency in the functioning of the FBI to keep a check on any kind of abuse of power.
By Revathi Krishnan and Taran Deol
The CBI’s legal status itself is indeterminate. It had been held to be illegal by the Gauhati High Court. The apex court stayed that decision during UPA days and there the matter rests. If there is one abiding verity that has shone forth, with increasing luminosity in recent times, it is that no institution, whatever noble constitutional garments it is clothed in, is more autonomous, credible or upright than the people who man it. Let the debate not be hijacked by semantics, or setting up a Committee whose report will be filed away.