Restoring sanity

The bringing back of the single-point' directive, which requires the CBI to obtain the government's permission before investigating seni...

The bringing back of the single-point8217; directive, which requires the CBI to obtain the government8217;s permission before investigating senior officials, is an idea which displays some much-needed decisiveness vis-a-vis the combined excesses of judiciary and the CBI. This newspaper has observed in the past that, on top of the sloth that already marks government and bureaucracy, if the sword of a CBI investigation were perpetually to hang over officials8217; heads, that would make them even more loth to take crucial decisions. But the directive8217;s import goes beyond this. The Supreme Court8217;s striking down of the single-point directive in the Jain-hawala case has now been overturned. Such was the horror at the extent of political corruption at the time that public opinion seemed to condone corrective measures themselves susceptible to abuse. Mercifully, sanity is now being restored.

The CBI, which was sought to be liberated from the government8217;s clutches, had shown itself to be extremely pliant in the past. Its credentials in investigating officials were suspect. How is a subordinate arm of government, peopled by policemen in its employ, equipped to not merely investigate the government but also decide when an investigation is merited? The Supreme Court8217;s attempt to empower it might have seemed an innovative idea, but it was an unworkable one. It was a high-profile and somewhat gimmicky attempt to find solutions that allowed a short-cut from the much more demanding and tedious process of strengthening normal constitutional institutions and mechanisms to deal with corruption. But apparent short-cuts can lead one to lose the way. It was never the intent of Indian democracy to adopt draconian methods to cleanse the system by unleashing a reign of terror whose only equivalent can be said to have been the raid raj 8212; and the ineffectiveness of that tool to deal with corporatecorruption surely has lessons to offer in this instance. Nor was the judiciary the institution made directly responsible by the Constitution for tackling official corruption. That was the job of the executive, and it fell to the judiciary only by default. The last government did not show the spunk to resist the appropriation of its own authority. This one has done well to reassert it quietly. It needs now to stay the course, but activism and not triumphalism is what is required. Asserting its authority is legitimate only if the government then goes on to legitimise this authority by equipping its institutions to confront corruption. Crucial in the matter is just who is to give or block clearance for investigating officials. Under the central vigilance ordinance it will be the Chief Vigilance Commissioner which does so, but ambiguity remains. There must be clear and transparent guidelines, to the extent possible, on the basis of which a go-ahead for a probe may be given or denied. The institutions of state,meanwhile, created with a system of checks and balances in mind, do not have to view this as a turf battle. It is nobody8217;s case that the judiciary has not played a pioneering role in cleansing Indian politics. But propriety now consists in leaving the executive to get on with the job. The executive for its part must realise that it was its own negligence and worse which provoked intervention, and could do so again.