Opinion Story of a caged parrot,part 2

What is shocking is the Centre’s stand in its affidavit that a powerful director is a “dangerous” entity. This is a giveaway. The government does not want a chief crime and corruption investigator in the country who will abide by the law and not be swayed by whom the former wants to cultivate and nurse. The investigations against Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati bear testimony to suspicions on this count. My guess is someone has tendentiously briefed the committee that formulated the government response,on how John Edgar Hoover,the fabled FBI director,who reigned for an incredible 48 years,blackmailed then US President John F. Kennedy and others with the help of dossiers he had assiduously built over the years by employing the resources available to him.

This stand ignores the fact that the FBI has come a long way since the 1960s and is now overseen by a powerful and alert Senate committee,and more importantly,an aggressive media that lets go of no opportunity to embarrass the executive. Also,the FBI director has now a fixed 10-year tenure only,and there has been no complaint that any director since Hoover has ever misused his office or acted to promote the interests of the White House or any single politician. In contrast to the FBI,what is demanded by us in India is a measly three-year tenure for the DCBI,and more financial powers to the organisation,which would prevent a dissatisfied executive from denying the resources that the director so badly needs to conduct investigation not only in India,but beyond as well. The current system of financial controls over CBI spending is a relic of the past,one designed solely to suffocate and arm twist the director. If a director chosen by the prime minister and a high-profile collegium cannot be trusted to employ his financial authority with prudence and honesty,how can you trust a secretary of a ministry,who goes through much less scrutiny before being appointed? This is where the IAS clique operates with a vengeance.

The Union government’s affidavit also unfortunately stands by the constitutionally untenable and obnoxious “single directive”,whereby no official of and above the rank of joint secretary can be investigated without a government nod. This rule,in blatant violation of the principle of equality before law,existing from the early years of the republic as an executive order,was incorporated into law by the BJP government in 2004,only to nullify what the Hawala judgment had laid down. The government’s current affidavit is clear that no government official can be summoned by the CBI even for questioning,without government approval. This is irrespective of whether the official concerned is a suspect,or just a witness in possession of precious information. How can you expect a Union minister to grant permission to investigate his secretary or joint secretary who may have acted as a conduit for his own dishonest transactions? The Raja case is relevant here. This is a travesty that the government wants to perpetuate,and which the CBI rightly fights tooth and nail. The constitutionality of the provision in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the Central Vigilance Commission Act that makes concrete the “single directive” can be challenged,and could figure directly or obliquely during the ensuing SC hearing.

The government proposal for an ombudsman comprising three judges to look into complaints against the CBI is welcome. But it is an experiment liable to be misused by elements adversely affected by an investigation that had been conducted along the right lines. Many safeguards will have to be fused into the system so that there is no scope for frivolous allegations against honest

CBI investigators.

Great expectations have been aroused by the apex court’s willingness to look into the question of making the CBI a dependable and neutral agency that is not bullied by a dishonest government. There will be no victor or vanquished after the court gives its directions. What should emerge is a consensus on how to fight corruption in high places without compromising the need for protecting the innocent. Making progress in this direction is a national cause and necessity,especially at a time when the nation’s image has been battered by the scams that have hit us at predictable intervals. Above all,a well structured,professionally staffed and autonomous CBI is a good advertisement across the globe and will greatly enhance investor confidence. At present,such confidence is nearly absent and explains the distressing flight of capital.

The writer is a former CBI director