Editorial: I for Independence

In 1941, at the height of World War II, as a result of the sudden and massive increase in government procurement, and keeping in mind the ever-present danger of people dipping into the till, the British rulers set up a body called the Special Police Establishment to look into allegations of government corruption. In 1962, a new charter was drawn up and eventually the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was born. For a long time it operated as though the 'I' in the abbreviation stood for independent investigation and prosecution. But for the last 25 years and more, it has increasingly come to be seen as the handmaiden of the government in power. These have tended to use the CBI to settle scores with political opponents or to bail out political allies. Even when a case has reached the trial stage "" which is rare "" the CBI has not been able to secure convictions on the scale that it ought to have done. As failed organisations go, especially when it comes to high-profile cases, it has few equals.

 

This is the reason why its latest exertions against Ms Mayawati, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh whose assets have zoomed from a mere Rs 4 crore to Rs 52 crore, are being viewed with such cynicism. She herself, following the practice of all politicians investigated by the CBI, has alleged political motives. The fact, however, is that the CBI has done no more than to comply with the Supreme Court's directions. To quote it: "It is clarified that the CBI's counter-affidavit is in compliance with the specific direction given in the order dated 15.5.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. The order dated 15.5.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in the context of the Writ Petition filed by Ms. Mayawati on 9.5.2008 challenging the FIR registered by CBI on 5.10.2003 in the matter pursuant to the order dated 18.9.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further clarified that CBI had no option but to file the counter-affidavit ..."

It is a matter both of shame and concern that the CBI has had to issue this clarification, which is available on its website. Such protestations of innocence, and saying that it "had no option but to file the counter-affidavit" don't help add to its authority. Indeed, they serve to underscore the poor opinion in which the organisation is held. That the CBI should be reformed, and that such reform should be aimed at placing it beyond the influence of the government of the day, is no longer a matter of debate. It is something that must be done without delay. There are several models available globally that seem to work much better than India's, which is based on the fundamentally wrong premise that good intentions are assumed to be there. Whichever model is chosen when reform is undertaken, three things must be ensured: security of tenure for the director, financial independence, and operational freedom that is backed by the law. Indeed, the original proposal in the early 1960s had envisaged all three, but none were accepted by the government, then headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. The time has come now to undo that mistake.