Opinion Dithering investigator

Less than three weeks after the CBI filed a revised “final” closure report in the Hindalco case on October 21, claiming that there was not enough evidence to file charges against any person, it has taken a U-turn. The premier investigative agency told the special CBI court on Monday that there is, in fact, “prima facie” material against “private parties” and “some government officials”. For an agency that seems to lurch from controversy to scandal, this latest flip-flop only reinforces the cloud of suspicion over its motives and competence. In September, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha was accused of fraternising with powerful and influential accused at his residence. In October, the attorney general told the Supreme Court that the conduct of Sinha’s predecessor, A.P. Singh, was “wholly unbecoming of the office he held” because of his proximity to a powerful businessman currently under the taxman’s lens. Given its track record and the erosion of public trust in the agency, its dithering on the Hindalco case now makes it look arbitrary at best, and politically motivated at worst .

The CBI has shown a penchant for exhuming long-ago cases and decisions. In the past two years, the agency has opened a number of cases pertaining to decisions taken nine or more years ago. The Hindalco case dates back to 2005; the Hindustan Zinc Ltd disinvestment case to 2002-03; and the Laxmi Vilas Palace disinvestment case to 2001-02. This pattern of opening and re-opening cases can impose heavy costs. Why would bureaucrats take consequential decisions, for instance, if the threat of being hauled out of retirement and thrown into expensive litigation looms so large? There is, rightly, no statute of limitations in criminal cases involving serious offences, and “policy paralysis” cannot be reason not to investigate alleged wrongdoing. However, by going back on its closure report, the CBI adds to the atmosphere of uncertainty that makes decision-making unattractive and difficult. The message it sends out: Even when it’s over, it’s not really over.

Advertisement

In the Hindalco case, the onus is on the CBI to not only present convincing material against the accused, but also to state why the presumably fresh evidence only came to light now, after two closure reports have already been filed.