Fifteen years after successive governments blithely ignored the Supreme Court’s directive to liberate the Central Bureau of Investigation from political control, the scam-tainted UPA regime, spurred into action after the Apex Court castigated the premier investigating agency as a “caged parrot,” finally set up a Group of Ministers to draft legislation to enhance CBI autonomy.
The move is a sequel to sensational developments in the coal block allocation scam, wherein CBI director Ranjit Sinha informed the court that the then Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, Attorney General GE Vahanvati and the then Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval, and two joint secretaries Shatrughna Singh (PMO) and AK Bhalla (Coal Ministry), had vetted the agency report and ordered substantial changes in the same. The CBI was supposed to submit its report to the Court in a sealed cover; the Court felt that the ‘heart of the report’ had been compromised.
Following the Court’s expression of anguish and anger at the blatant flouting of its May 6 orders, the Congress party’s ‘man for all seasons’ Digvijay Singh criticised the Court for being ‘observative’. This resulted in widespread condemnation and public odium, to deflect which the UPA seems to have set up the GoM headed by P Chidambaram (Finance), with Salman Khurshid (External Affairs), Kapil Sibal (Communications & Information Technology), Manish Tewari (Information & Broadcasting), and V Narayanasamy (MoS, Personnel) as members. They are likely to submit the draft of the new legislation to the Supreme Court before the next hearing in the case on July 10.
The Supreme Court first called for an insulated CBI in the Jain hawala diary case in the late 1990s (Vineet Narain Vs Union of India & Another of 18 December 1997) in a judgment by Chief Justice JS Verma and Justices SP Bharucha and SC Sen.
The case began as a complaint of inertia by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a matter against some eminent politicians and other notables, and drew public attention to the need for probity and accountability in public life. Hence, keeping public interest in mind, the Court took the unusual step of appointing the petitioners’ counsel, Anil Divan, as amicus curiae. All persons who desired were permitted to provide relevant material to the amicus curiae for consideration by the court. The Court noted that the CBI and Revenue Department showed definite improvement in their performance once assured of protection in the discharge of their duties.
The Bench observed, “This experience revealed to us the need for the insulation of these agencies from any extraneous influence to ensure the continuance of the good work they have commenced”. It felt this called for “permanent measures” to create a “fair and impartial agency” so that every matter did not have to come before the court on ad hoc basis. Rule of law is the bedrock of democracy; both are embedded in the basic postulate of the concept of equality: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”.
The Jain dairies case began with the arrest of one Ashfak Hussain Lone, an alleged member of Hizbul Mujahideen, in Delhi on March 25, 1991. Following his interrogation, the CBI conducted raids on the premises of Surrender Kumar Jain, his brothers, relations and businesses, and recovered inter alia two diaries and two notebooks containing details of huge payments made to persons identified only by initials. The initials corresponded to the initials of various high ranking politicians, in and out of power, and high ranking bureaucrats.
When nothing was done to investigate the Jains or the contents of their diaries, some public interest petitions were filed on October 4, 1993, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The main concern of the petitioners was that the arrest of terrorists had led to the discovery of financial support to them via `havala’ transactions; this disclosed a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and criminals; that the CBI and other Government agencies failed to investigate the matter in order to protect influential persons involved; and that this nexus between crime and corruption in high places posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation.
The Court passed a series of orders to the effect that the CBI and other Governmental agencies had not carried out their duty to investigate the offences disclosed; that no one is above the law or exempt from investigation; and that the Court would monitor the investigations to ensure that they were conducted.
The moment a charge-sheet was filed in respect of a particular investigation, the ordinary process of the law would take over. This meant there was no presumption of guilt against any accused, and that the actual merits of any accusation against any person(s) would be considered by the competent trial court in separate proceedings.
The Court specifically directed the CBI not to report the progress of the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political executive (Prime Minister) to eliminate any impression of bias or lack of fairness or objectivity and to maintain the credibility of the investigations.
This is precisely the order which was perverted when the then Law Minister, Attorney General and other officials vetted and tampered with the text of the Coal-gate scam affidavit. Ranjit Sinha’s decision to expose the same has doubtless paved the way for an eventually independent CBI, which has long been a public demand.
In the Jain dairies case, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Central Vigilance Commission should be conferred statutory status and that the CVC should overview CBI’s functioning.
Fifteen years of inertia followed this judgment. Now, with Ranjit Sinha concurring with the Court observation that the CBI was a “caged parrot” of its political masters, the need to insulate the agency from extraneous pressures is an urgent imperative. A suitable legislation will not come a day too soon.
NitiCentral.com, 15 May 2013
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/05/15/liberating-the-caged-parrot-77842.html
