CBI Functioning and CVC

In News

• The Supreme court has been criticising the CBI for its “actions and inactions” on several occasions and flagged fundamental problems with the functioning of the agency.

Efforts to restructure law-enforcement agencies

• The struggle to free elite law-enforcement agencies such as the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) from the stranglehold of governments and political parties has been ongoing since the 1990s.
  • For CBI:
    • The Supreme Court fixed the tenure of the CBI Director at two years. 
    • The Lokpal Act, 2013, laid down that the CBI Director should be chosen, unanimously or by majority vote, by a search committee headed by the Prime Minister and also comprising the Leader of Opposition and the CJI or his representative, from a list of candidates drawn up by the Home Ministry and examined by the Department of Personnel and Training.
  • For CVC:
    • The apex Court gave statutory status to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
    • It also stipulated that a panel headed by the CVC and including top secretaries to the Union government would draw up a panel from which the Director of the ED would be selected.

Major Criticisms 

• Functioning and dilution:
  • According to critics, central agencies such as CVC and CBI have become completely defunct.
  • The SC judgment and the CVC Act (of 2003) have been progressively diluted by various governments over the years. 
    • The advent of Lokpal diluted it even more.
• Political interference:
  • Since all these sanctioning authorities have links to the ruling dispensation, Opposition parties feel they are unfairly targeted.
  • Ruling governments dangle carrots before agency Directors in terms of post-retirement appointments is damaging the institution. 

Structural constraints of CBI

• Frequently highlight constraints:
  • The CBI has been stymied both by the legal structure within which it functions and by the changes made by governments in the Rules governing it. 
  • Over the years, these have progressively made the agency subservient to the Union government.
    • To prosecute any MLA, state minister, or MP, the CBI needs sanction from the Speaker of the state Assembly (in case of MLAs) or the Governor (for state ministers). 
    • In the case of an MP, sanction is sought from the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Vice Chairman of Rajya Sabha. 
  • Withdrawal of general consent:
    • The work of the agency has been further constrained by the increasingly hostile relations between the Centre and the state governments. 
    • As many as nine states have withdrawn general consent to the CBI. 
    • Most of these are Opposition-ruled states, which have alleged that the CBI is being used by the Centre to target the Opposition.
• The Chief Justice of India listed several issues that were affecting the CBI’s functioning:
  • General issues:
    • Lack of infrastructure, sufficient manpower and modern equipment; 
    • In-human conditions, especially at the lowest rung; 
    • Questionable methods of procuring evidence; 
    • Officers failing to abide by the rule book; and 
    • Lack of accountability of erring officers.
  • The issues leading to delay in trials were: 
    • Lack of public prosecutors and standing counsels; seeking adjournments; arraying hundreds of witnesses and filing voluminous documents in pending trials; undue imprisonment of undertrials; change in priorities with the change in the political executive; cherry picking of evidence; and repeated transfers of officers leading to a change in the direction of the probe.
  • These issues often lead to the acquittal of the guilty and incarceration of the innocent. 
  • This severely affects the public trust in the system and the courts cannot simply monitor every step.

Way Ahead

• Creation of Independent umbrella institution:
  • There is an immediate need for the creation of an independent umbrella institution, so as to bring various central agencies like the CBI, CVC, Enforcement Directorate and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under one roof.
  • This body is required to be created under a statute, clearly defining its powers, functions and jurisdictions. 
  • Independence: 
    • The organisation should be headed by an independent and impartial authority, appointed by a committee akin to the one which appointed the CBI Director. 
    • Its head could be assisted by deputies having specialisation in different domains.
• Relationship between the State and Central agencies:
  • There should be a harmonious relationship between the State and Central agencies and collaboration was the key, given that the goal of all those organisations was to secure justice.
• Upgradation of knowledge:
  • There is a need for regular upgradation of knowledge, deployment of state-of-the-art technology, and international exchange programmes to learn the best practices.
• The role, jurisdiction and legal powers of the CBI need to be clearly laid down.

Source: IE