The Madras High Court has ruled that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be given statutory status, and only then can its autonomy be ensured. By passing an order as an “attempt to release the caged parrot (CBI)”, the High Court has recommended to the central government to make CBI more “independent” like the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
The Bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi said, “Whenever any sensitive, heinous crimes are committed and there is no proper investigation by the local police, there is a demand for CBI investigation and the said demand for CBI investigation is increasing day by day due to the credibility of the Central Bureau of Investigation. People revere CBI as a premier trustworthy agency, which could investigate the cases impartially and fairly and prosecute the case before the Court efficiently and properly.”
But the court also observed that the CBI has been “dragging its feet” whenever there is a demand for enquiry, citing paucity of resources and personnel that restricts them from conducting investigations. “This is the usual stereotype version/defence of the CBI before the Courts,” the Bench remarked.
Limited manpower
The Bench observed that CBI has very limited manpower available with them. Here’s the list of officials across different years as per CBI’s records:
5,796 in 2000
6,526 in 2010
7,274 in 2015
7,273 officials as on December 14, 2020.
The Bench also opined that the facilities in the CBI must be enhanced so that it can be equated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, and Scotland Yard of the United Kingdom.
“India is a thickly populated country with more than 130 crore people, the second largest in the World, next only to China. More offences are being committed including serious offences, corruption cases, act of terrorism having international ramifications. In view of that the facilities in the premier agency have to be enhanced, so that it could be equated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States of America and Scotland Yard of the United Kingdom”, read the order. The court reiterated that the independence of the body is essential for an “impartial, neutral, credible investigation of the cases investigated by it.”
The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment Vineet Narayanan v. Union of India 1997 (1 SCC 226), wherein it was observed that the “CBI is a caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”. The High Court said, “The said observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fortified by the statement made by the CBI Director before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Coal allocation case that a former Law Minister meddled with the statement of CBI filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Further, the Bench listed the high-profile cases of sensitive nature like- The Jain Hawala Scandal, Bofors Scam, Sohrabuddin case, Sant Singh Chatwal case, Fodder case, Bhopal gas tragedy, 2G Spectrum case, Coal allocation scam, Noida double murder case, Nithari multiple murders, Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, and said that the CBI’s work is restricted only to a few cases, due to lack of man power and resources.
In order to rectify this issue, the court said that a special act by which the CBI could be granted a statutory status, is necessary. “Though, very sensitive and complicated cases are being investigated or handled, the number of cases handled by CBI is just equivalent or less than the cases handled by a single police station in the country. Therefore, CBI has to take up more cases by increasing its manpower and other resources”, ordered the Bench.
CBI’s high acquittal rate
In its earlier order passed on December 8, 2020, the court seemed anguished about the high acquittal rate in CBI even when the crimes investigated by them are serious in nature.
The Bench had recorded, “When serious cases are coming up before Courts, there is always a glamour to seek for transferring the cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation, as the Central Bureau of Investigation has got a reputation as a premier investigation agency. It is known for investigating economic offences, corruption cases and sensitive cases. However, many cases which are investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, even serious cases, have ended in acquittal. It reflects badly upon the investigation of CBI. Hence, time has come to look into problems faced by CBI. Investigation of CBI needs to be improved by adding experts and modern gadgets.”
Directions issued to the Centre
The Central government is expected to consider and take a decision for enactment of a separate act giving statutory status with more powers and jurisdiction to CBI “at the earliest”. The Bench has also directed for a separate budgetary allocation for CBI.
The High Court has directed the Central government to take a decision on the comprehensive proposal for cadre review and restructuring of CBI within a period of “one month”. This direction was issued in light of the submission made on September 9, 2020 for comprehensive cadre review and restructuring of CBI, and for creation of 734 additional posts in different ranks that are pending with the Central Government.
It was also observed that officials and staff should be independently recruited by the CBI and given proper training instead of depending upon the deputation from police forces. “Therefore, in this regard the CBI shall send a comprehensive proposal to the Central Government for approval”, ordered the Division Bench.
Another very important direction that came from the High Court is that the Director of CBI shall be given powers as that of the Secretary to the Government and shall directly report to the Minister/Prime Minister without going through DoPT. (Department of Personnel and Training). The DoPT has been directed to pass orders on the CBI restructuring letter after consulting with other departments, if necessary, within a period of “six weeks” from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Other directions issues include:
– CBI should file a well thought out Policy within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for permanently recruiting (i) Cyber Forensic experts and (ii) Financial Audit experts, so that all the branches/wings of CBI should have these experts available with them and not on case-to-case basis.
– The details of cases wherein charges have not been framed by the Trial Courts despite the charge sheets having been filed by CBI for more than one year, should be shared by Director, CBI with the respective Registrar Generals of the High Courts.
– CBI should send another detailed proposal seeking further increase in the divisions/wings as well as strength of Officers in CBI to the Government of India within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and Government of India should pass orders on the same within a period of three months of its receipt.
In 2018, CJP (SabrangIndia’s sister publication) Secretary, Teesta Setalvad had raised similar issues about CBI and its lack of autonomy stifling their freedom. In a video titled “Unshackle the CBI from political control”, she had said, “We need a CBI with self-respecting officers, who are well equipped and most importantly who are independent officers.” She had also raised the same issue that has been addressed by the Madras High Court about recruitment of officers through police forces instead of independent exams and subsequent training. The entire video may be seen here:
The judgment may be read here:
Related:
Unshackle the CBI from political control: Teesta Setalvad
With Asthana as Interim CBI Chief, CBI Resembles the Gujarat Bureau of Investigation
CBI U-Turn against its own chargesheet in the Sohrabuddin case, the caged parrot syndrome?