Key Facts and Issues Around CBI

Central Bureau of Investigation itself was not established via any act of the parliament, yet it derives its power of investigation from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946. It was first set up as Special Police Establishment (SPE) 1941 by the British to investigate the corruption and economic offenses related to supply department by the Government Officers during the World War II.

After independence, it was retained as a Central Government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by Central Government employees. For this, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was enacted 1946. The CBI’s power to investigate cases is derived from this Act. By a resolution, the government changed its name to current name in 1960s. The jurisdiction of the SPE extended to all the Union Territories and could be extended also to the States with the consent of the State Government concerned.

Currently, CBI comes under the control of Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension. It is the nodal police agency in India to coordinate with Interpol. It investigates those crimes which may have interstate and international ramifications. Its areas of operation are:

• Anti-Corruption: Under this, CBI investigates corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all Central Govt. Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions.
• Economic Crimes: Under this, CBI investigates crimes such as bank frauds, financial frauds, Import Export & Foreign Exchange violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and smuggling of other contraband items etc.
• Special Crimes: Under special crimes, CBI handles cases such as terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides, kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/the underworld.

Issue Regarding Granting Autonomy to CBI

The issue regarding granting of autonomy to CBI has recently come to fore in the ongoing “Coalgate” scam case in Supreme Court. This case began when a PIL was filed by advocate M L Sharma in 2012, seeking cancellation of 194 coal blocks allocated by the Indian government to private and public sector companies on grounds of arbitrariness, illegality, unconstitutionality and public interest.

In May 2013, the CBI submitted to the Court that law minister Ashwani Kumar had been vetting its responses and affidavits to the Court in this case. In fact, the agency admitted that Ashwani Kumar and two government officials had changed some parts of its affidavit, though it also maintained that these parts related to preliminary enquiries and changes in these parts did not change the overall character of the report. However, this revelation made the apex court come down heavily on CBI and the government, calling CBI a “caged parrot that has many masters” and asking the government to ensure greater functional autonomy for CBI in investigation in corruption cases.

Subsequent hearings in the case led to CBI filing affidavits on specific details of its demand for greater autonomy. At the same time, the Centre has also filed its objections against few of the demands for autonomy by CBI. To understand the calls for autonomy and their benefits or adverse effects, it is important to first understand the origin of CBI, and its powers and functions at present.

CBI has made the following demands for its functional, administrative and financial autonomy:

• Vesting its Director with the powers of ex-officio Secretary to the Govt of India: This would allow the Director to directly report to the Minister of Personnel and hence reduce the hassles faced by CBI in going through DoPT for even basic administrative issues. But the Central government has strongly opposed this demand. As per the government, grant of ex-officio Secretary status to CBI director will go against the scheme of governance as envisaged in DSPE Act, 1946 and have deleterious effects on the criminal justice system. Deriding the CBI contention that its chief too should be allowed to report to the minister, as was the case of the R&AW chief and special secretary (Internal Security), the government said that the functional requirements of an intelligence agency like R&AW cannot be compared to an investigating agency like the CBI. It also said that R&AW chief reports to the cabinet secretary and special secretary (Internal Security) reports to the home secretary, and not to the prime minister and home minister respectively.
• Role for CBI director in appointing the chief of prosecution wing in CBI: CBI director Ranjit Sinha has written to Law Ministry seeking a role for the agency’s director in the appointment of Director of Prosecution in CBI.
• Power for CBI Director to appoint public prosecutor to handle its cases: CBI has also asked for complete power for its director to appoint public prosecutor in its cases. This will give it greater autonomy in politically sensitive investigations. So far, public prosecutors have been appointed by Law & Justice Ministry. According to news reports, the government had submitted to the Supreme Court on Jan 15^th that CBI Director will be given the power to appoint public prosecutors.
• Three-year tenure for its Director as opposed to the current two-year tenure
• Financial autonomy: At present, the CBI has to depend on DoPT for its major financial needs. It receives less than the required expenses for transport expenses of its staff for investigations, training, etc. According to official sources, the government has agreed to grant financial powers to the CBI director equivalent to those enjoyed by Director Generals of various paramilitary forces.

Current status of grant of autonomy to CBI

The government has been mulling over introducing a bill to amend the DSPE Act, 1946 to give more powers and autonomy to CBI. Few provisions for grant of autonomy are also expected to be notified through executive orders. In recent instance, CBI was given some financial autonomy. Till now, CBI had to get permission from the government even to procure small equipments. As per the latest decisions,

• Director of CBI can now approve projects worth Rs. 15 crore in a year.
• The director will be free to appoint consultants and employ people on contract.
• The CBI director has been given the rank of Secretary to the Government of India, and will, in effect, now be allowed to handle India’s premier investigating agency autonomously.

Towards Total autonomy?

Total autonomy seems to be a distant dream for CBI as of now. As of now, CBI is not autonomous and the recent reforms fall short of the demands made by activists as well as the opposition leaders. As described above, CBI has demanded many times that it be allowed to function freely.