 "Should Caesar's wife be above suspicion? Not for the CBI")
Last year, the Supreme Court ordered the CBI, which was probing the disproportionate assets case against Samajwadi Party Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family, to exclude Dimple Yadav – Akhilesh’s wife from the case because she was a private person. This eventually led to the collapse of the entire case, as the CBI felt that without Dimple their argument was finished. It is a different matter altogether that Dimple’s assets constituted less than 30% of the total overrun by the family, but the point is, CBI eventually had to close the file.
Similarly, the key argument of the Congress party against the opposition’s demand for a CBI enquiry into Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra’s alleged fraudulent land deals was that he was a ‘private individual’ and so the case wouldn’t be referred to the CBI. Former director of the agency Joginder Singh parroted the same argument to Tehelka magazine saying, “Both DLF and Vadra are private entities, so the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply.”
Also Read
The ‘private individual’ excuse has also been used as a counter argument by those convicted by the courts. Recently freed YSR Congress Party leader YS Jaganmohan Reddy’s wife Bharathi Reddy appealed to the Prime Minister when Jagan was in jail, asking him to stop harassing her husband because he was neither an MP nor an MLA during the period under CBI’s investigation. In effect, he was a private individual.
"While the probes against Robert Vadra and Dimple Yadav were dropped because they were private individuals during the period of investigation. I would like to ask you how is Jagan any different from them? He was also a private individual, so why this selective victimisation?” asked Bharathi.
The truth of the matter is that this is a grey area, and rampantly exploited by politicians to suit their purpose say legal experts. Logically a ‘private individual’ isn’t after all private if he/she enjoys special privileges by virtue of being related to a political heavyweight. Robert Vadra is exempted from being frisked at airports. Which ‘private individual’ enjoys such ‘public’ privileges?
Moreover, if the political clout of relatives in power is used to undermine the law by a private entity, how is that a ‘private’ matter for the federal agency not to probe? Will a public servant wanting to embezzle money do it on his/her own name? Invariably the laundering will be done through benami transactions, through family members or friends. Are such transactions then, not worthy of being probed?
“The problem is, if a corruption case has to be registered against a politician or bureaucrat, the main charge must be under the Prevention of Corruption Act which deals only with public servants,” says veteran Criminal Lawyer Majid Memon.
The FAQ page on the CBI website categorically states that the CBI can probe crimes under the Anti-Corruption Division (the largest division having presence almost in all the states of India) for “investigation of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against public officials and the employees of central government, public sector undertakings, corporations or bodies owned or controlled by the government of India"
However, the CBI page also says the agency can also probe offences under the Economic Offences Division “for investigation of major financial scams and serious economic frauds, including crimes relating to fake Indian currency notes, bank frauds and cyber crime.”
This is the area of ambiguity: ‘Major financial scams and economic frauds’ involving who? All parties? Or just public servants?
“The jurisdiction of the CBI is limited to the PCA, but we need to get more clarity on this matter as it is a grey area which can be used to soft pedal important cases. Someone should file a PIL in the apex court to eliminate the ambiguity,” noted Supreme Court advocate HP Ranina told Business Standard.
But the real issue seems not to be of CBI’s limited powers, but a lack of political will to bring cases involving high profile politicians to their logical conclusion. “The CBI is not the only investigative agency in the country. The Income Tax department, the Enforcement Directorate are among the options available to tackle such cases. They are not subject to guidelines of the PCA. Every individual – public or private can be investigated. There are enough powers given to the IT department under section 68 and 69,” adds Ranina.
As things stand today, Vadra’s case hasn’t been referred to either the ED or the IT department for investigation. However, reports do suggest that the CBI has asked the IT department to look into Mulayam’s matter.