Autonomy: CBI proposed,Govt disposes

In an affidavit in the Supreme Court in connection with the coal blocks allotment case,the government rejected the demand that the CBI director should be on par with a secretary in the Central government or that the agency deserved more administrative and financial powers for insulating it in its day-to-day functioning.

Opinion: Neither caged parrot,nor unruly horse

The issue of the CBIs autonomy had taken centrestage after the agency shared its probe report with the political executive.

The government declared that making the CBI director all-powerful without proper checks would be against constitutional principles and would also carry the risk of potential misuse of his position. It refused to agree to a minimum tenure of three years for the CBI chief and added that it was not desirable to create new precedence that would lead to heartburn and dissension in other similar organisations.

The affidavit by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) came in response to the unhappiness expressed by the CBI over the amendments proposed by the government to make the agency autonomous. The affidavit began by pointing out that CBI director Ranjit Sinhas views had already been considered by the Group of Ministers.

The main concern of the CBI is limited to its functional autonomy within the overall supervision and control of the government. CBI does not want (and has never desired) an autonomy that would put it outside the government purview, Sinha had told the GoM.

However,in its response to the amendments approved by the Cabinet to make the agency autonomous,the CBI cited several deficiencies in the Centres stand on non-interference in investigations,giving a minimum tenure to its director,setting up an accountability commission to inquire into cases against its officers,engagement of lawyers,and involvement of the Attorney General at the investigation stage,among others.

In response,the DoPT has said that most of these demands were not agreeable to it in view of the principle that authority without accountability will be draconian,more so when we are dealing with an organisation with police powers of arrest,seizure,raids and confinement.

It rejected the CBIs demand to do away with the need to seek the governments permission to investigate top officers and instead have a committee,to be headed by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and including the Cabinet Secretary and the CBI director,to decide the question of approvals.

The DoPT said that even a committee would have to depend on the ministry for inputs,which would only lead to more delay. Therefore,it is the administrative ministry which is in the best position for according approval for investigation or inquiry within the shortest possible time, it said.

In the affidavit,which will be examined by the court Tuesday,the DoPT has also refused to accept the CBIs demand to do away with the need to seek the approval of the law ministry to engage lawyers to fight its cases.

The Centre also countered all proposals to put the director of prosecution (DoP) under the supervision of the CBI director,saying this would compromise the impartiality of the prosecuting agency. It opposed a demand to give the DoP a minimum three-year term.

Terming as fallacious and not tenable, the government has also junked the CBIs opposition to an Accountability Commission,comprising of former SC and HC judges,to look into complaints against CBI officers. It contended that since there was no external system available to the public for redressal of complaints against misconduct of CBI officials,the commission would provide the necessary mechanism and would also help instill discipline within the agency.

The DoPT rejected the CBIs demand to allow its director to directly recruit SP- and DySP-level officers,saying the necessity of consultations with the UPSC and the administrative ministry could not be done away with. At present,the director can appoint officers up to the rank of inspector.

It also refused to give complete disciplinary control over its Group A officers to its director. Vesting complete disciplinary control of Group A officers with the director would not only be against the law but also be against settled principles of administration wherein safeguards have been provided to officers so that they work without fear or favour, the Centre claimed.

The DoPT also rejected the CBIs opposition to seeking the AGs opinion in all cases where the CBI director disagrees with the director of prosecution,saying the involvement of the AG would ensure impartiality in the prosecution process.

The Centre also rejected the CBIs plea that a new director of the agency should have experience of working in the CBI at a supervisory level,saying this would exclude other talented police officers from appointment.