Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 23: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice has recommended enacting a new law to govern the functioning of the central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Under the new law, status, functions and powers of the CBI should also be defined besides laying down safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in its functioning.”
The report of the committee which was tabled in Parliament highlighted the requirement of the consent of the state governments for the CBI to probe a case and said the provision required under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which govern the functioning of the CBI, has “many limitations” and there was a need to enact a new legislation to define its status, functions and powers.
The federal probe agency CBI was established in 1963. It is currently governed by the DSPE Act, enacted to regulate the functioning of the special police establishment set up in 1941 to investigate cases of bribery and corruption involving purchases and supplies during World War II.
The committee pointed out that according to the provisions of the DSPE Act, the consent of the State government was a prerequisite for any investigation by the CBI and as on date, nine States have withdrawn the general consent. “The Committee feels that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has many limitations and therefore, recommends that there is a need to enact a new law and define the status, functions and powers of the CBI and also lay down safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in its functioning,” it said.
Not long ago, the Supreme Court had asked a similar question to the Centre if the CBI could be liberated from the DSPE Act and given a carte blanche to extend its probe into territories of other States without their consent merely on the basis of a mandate given by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
“Will the CVC Act overcome the DSPE Act? The CBI cannot be liberated from the obligations placed on it with a State under the DSPE Act,” a Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli had addressed the Centre in relation to a case in West Bengal in September, last year.
The case concerned a CBI probe into the allegedly massive theft and illegal transportation of coal from the Eastern Coalfield mines by West Bengal government and Central public sector officials in cahoots with the mafia. However, one of the accused, Anup Majee, had approached the Supreme Court saying the CBI case was politically motivated. The West Bengal government had withdrawn its general consent for CBI investigations in the State in 2018. However, the Calcutta High Court had upheld the CBI probe in the State. “So far as corruption by Central government officers is concerned, State consent is not required at all,” the Attorney General KK Venugopal had submitted.
He had argued that no permission of the State government was required for the registration of a case carrying out an investigation in the railway area. Even if the State had withdrawn consent for investigation, railway areas constitute the exclusive domain of the CBI. State Police and the Railway Protection Force cannot overlap the power and functions of the CBI.
The Parliamentary Committee, however, recommended total transparency in the functioning of the CBI. It said the details of cases registered with the CBI, the progress made in their investigation and the final outcome were not available in public domain and asked the agency to put in public domain the details to the extent possible. The committee observed that the annual report of CBI was also not accessible to the general public.
“The Committee is of the opinion that in this age of transparency, every public authority should strive to proactively disclose the data available with it or held by it in public domain to the extent possible.” It said providing access to information would not only empower the citizens but would also make the functioning of CBI more accountable, responsible, efficient and transparent.
The committee, therefore, recommended CBI to publish case statistics and annual reports on its website and also reiterated its recommendation that CBI should maintain a case management system which would be a centralised database containing details of cases registered with it and the progress made in their disposal. “The case management system should also enable tracking of the progress of each individual case and should be, by and large, accessible to the general public,” the report said.
About the composition of the CBI, the Parliamentary panel said vacant posts in the CBI were not being filled up at the required pace and recommended that “every effort should be made to fill up vacancies at the earliest. A total of 1,709 posts are vacant in the CBI against its sanctioned strength of 7,295.
“The Committee is of the opinion that vacancies in the cadres of executive ranks, law officers and technical officers will unquestionably increase pendency of cases, hamper the quality of investigation and ultimately impact the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency,” the report said.
The panel further recommended that the Director of CBI should monitor the progress made in filling up of vacancies on a quarterly basis and take necessary measures to ensure that the organisation was sufficiently staffed.
On being asked about the reasons for delay in filling up of vacancies, CBI informed the committee that it was not receiving sufficient nominations of officers from Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and state police which have traditionally been a major source of induction, particularly up to the rank of inspector in the organisation, it said.
“CBI further said that CAPFs and state police are under increasing pressure within their own jurisdictions and hence have expressed challenges in sparing officers and personnel to the same extent as in the past,” the report said.
The Committee, in its previous reports, had recommended CBI to reduce its dependence on deputationists and strive to recruit permanent staff in the ranks of inspector of police and deputy superintendent of police. “However, CBI showed unwillingness and justified its stand citing that deputationists bring in fresh ideas, novel strategies and varied skill sets with them and that direct recruitment at higher levels would affect career progression,” it said.
The Committee said it fully agreed with the view of CBI that deputationists benefit the organisation with their expertise and skill sets, however, feels that an organisation should keep the mode of recruitment through deputation to minimum.
