Opinion Save the parrot: On CBI chief Ranjit Sinha, Supreme Court and 2G spectrum case

In its extraordinary and unprecedented order on Thursday, the Supreme Court found allegations against the chief of the country’s premier investigation agency “prima facie credible” and directed Ranjit Sinha “not to interfere” in the probe and trial of the 2G spectrum scam cases. It was withholding more elaborate reasons for its decision, it also said, in order “to protect the faith in the institution and the reputation of the director of the CBI”. Responding to the court, Sinha has sought to brazen it out, insisting that no “personal aspersions” had been cast against him.

It is incredible that the CBI chief should try to dodge the implications of the court’s indictment of his role in one of the biggest and most high-profile corruption cases in recent times. But it is also baffling that the court should go so far and then choose to mince its words. It is a little late in the day to be squeamish about hurting public “faith” in an institution that has long been accused of caving in to executive interference and political agendas, and was in the dock most recently for having its affidavit on coal block allocations vetted by the Union law minister in 2013. The court’s concern for the “reputation” of the CBI director seems equally misplaced. Sinha’s handling of the 2G and coal block allocation cases has sparked too many questions and allegations for there to be any suspension of disbelief now.

Advertisement

In fact, Sinha’s refusal to step down and the court’s seemingly long rope to him thus far could potentially wreak even more serious damage.

They could put a question mark against CBI investigations in the entire 2G case. After all, if its chief stands accused of hobnobbing with influential accused in cases of corruption being probed under his watch, and if an apparently damning pattern has been established in the visits of these individuals to his residence — reports in this paper have pointed out that the frequency with which they called on Sinha increased as CBI investigations against them or their associates picked up pace — how seriously should we take the case made out by the agency?

Sinha’s tumultuous career also threatens to cast a shadow on the renewed discussion on CBI autonomy and its accountability. What should be the balance between the two? And what should be the terms of executive supervision or control? The real disservice the CBI chief has done to his institution is to let his own questionable record cloud the important long-term issues at stake.