The popular perception of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that it is a superior investigation agency, that its investigations are thorough, meticulous and fair, and that it is above political interference. When people or the Opposition in the States are disgusted at the investigations and behaviour of the State Police which comes directly under the political masters, there is always a shrill cry to refer the matter to the CBI, as if it’s integrity and investigation expertise is of a divine order. If only the people knew that the one thing the CBI has remained true to is the date of its founding, that is April 1, 1963. They have, as they have grown, perfected the art of fooling the people all the time.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has been showing itself in several avataras over the last few months.
We read in the papers last month that the Supreme Court directed new CBI chief to lead a criminal probe against the former CBI director Mr Ranjit Sinha over his private meetings with the accused in the coal block allocations. Something unprecedented - a sitting CBI Director conducting a criminal investigation against his predecessor.
Then we read a few days ago that the CBI has registered a case against yet another former CBI Chief Shri AP Singh for allegedly providing favours to the notorious meat exported Moin Quereshi, who is an accused in a graft case, raiding his house et al.
These two incidents suffice to inform the general public about the kind of leadership that political governments value greatly when selecting the CBI Chief.
The appointment of the present CBI Chief Shri Alok Sinha was also preceded by some mysterious political decision making. The previous CBI Director Shri Anil Kumar Sinha retired on December 2, 2016. The senior most officer of the organization, who was most competent and qualified to succeed him, Rupak Dutta, was shunted out two days before A K Sinha’s term ended to a nonexistent post. One of the junior most officers, Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat Police officer, whose name did not even figure in the panel was appointed ‘Acting Director’ CBI.
This was unusual and unprecedented, lending itself to the most unsavoury speculation. This situation continued for more than a month without the Selection Committee being called. Finally, it was called just after the new Chief Justice was appointed, and Mr Alok Kumar Verma, was selected as Director, with the leader of the Opposition, reportedly giving a dissenting view. Verma is known to be a fine officer and gentleman, but the general talk is that the strings will be pulled by the Gujarat Cadre Additional Director. The present government has shown itself as blatant and brazen as its predecessor to keep the CBI as its pet caged parrot.
After what the country has seen of the top brass of this premier investigation agency, let us come down to their personnel. The CBI staff today is constituted of a few IPS officers deputed from the State Governments from the ranks of SP and above, and a bulk of officers directly recruited by the CBI ranging from Sub Inspectors to Dy SPs. The IPS officers have ensured that they remain supervisory officers for investigation and never have to sign any FIR or a charge sheet to be presented for the Courts. Thereby they are very well insulated against any strictures by the Courts for faulty investigations or failure of the prosecution case. Most of their time is spent in maintaining cordial relations with those in power and protecting their subordinates, who may be hauled up by the Courts for faulty investigation.
Recently, the Special CBI Court of Shri O.P.Saini discharged the Maran brothers and all accused in the CBI case filed against them in the Aircel-Maxis deal cases filed by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate in 2013. The meaning of ‘discharge’ according the Cr PC is that the Investigation Officer (I.O) of the CBI filed a charge sheet against Maran Brothers without any shred of evidence, which resulted in their discharge.
One might ask as to what was the role or contribution of the supervisory IPS officers in this case, or did the I.O file the charge sheet without their knowledge or supervision? The public will never come to know the answers to these questions. From the Bofors case till date, the same situation continues. On the other hand, the IPS officers of the CBI work overtime to file an appeal in a higher court to protect their subordinates in such cases. There is a vested interest in doing this. For if they do not protect them, the subordinate officers would stop filing charge sheets in the courts as per directions received from their political bosses. There is hardly any case where the CBI does not file an appeal when it’s case fails in a trial court. They do it for their self-preservation, and for protecting their officers from defamation/damage charges that they may face in future from those they’ve wronged. Appeals in the higher courts go on for decades. But the CBI officers have the luxury to file these appeals with tax payers’ money, whereas the accused if he is really innocent or honest will have to fight them with his own hard earned money.
The CBI never registers “suo moto” cases against its own officers for wrong doing, unless by an order of the Court, as in the case of the former Director of CBI Ranjit Sinha. It was due to the efforts made by Prashant Bhushan’s NGO spending time and money that a probe was ordered by the Supreme Court against the former CBI Director. The public would like to see this probe report in print and not in a sealed cover citing morale of the organization as a pretext. The CBI constantly conceals from the public its failings and misdeeds, and has the means and political clout to do so. It is this unaccountability that emboldens the CBI to indulge recklessly in its misdeeds and damage reputations.
Every time the CBI registers a regular case, there is a great deal of publicity about raids conducted, and seizure of incriminating evidence. Often family members are humiliated during these searches and subsequent interrogations, something the members of the general public never get to know. Last year, an entire family in Delhi committed suicide because of harassment and torture by the CBI. But nothing is known of what action was taken against the torturers.
If the CBI is to be reformed and made more accountable, a performance audit of the CBI must be made mandatory. While the CBI periodically issues press releases showing a high percentage of conviction by the Courts in the cases handled by them, no one knows how these percentages have been calculated, and how many convictions by the trial courts are later set aside by the higher courts. No CBI press release ever reveals this.
To give out a true picture of its performance, the CBI should list out all the cases (R.C) investigated by it each year, and should provide information whether it ended in discharge, acquitted or conviction. Next, it should provide information whether an appeal was filed by it or the accused in the High Court and if so what the result of such appeal was, and thereafter whether an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court and its result.
For arriving at a truthful conviction rate, only such cases where conviction was not appealed against or was upheld in any appeals filed should be counted. The number of such cases as a percentage of the total number of cases registered in each calendar year alone can give the true conviction rate of cases registered by the CBI, and should be made known to the public, and placed on their website without claiming exemption from the RTI Act. This could perhaps be a small beginning to instill some sense of accountability in the CBI.
