SUPREME COURT’S JUDGEMENT ABOUT DIRECTOR CBI

Does Supreme Court’s Judgement Protect CBI’s Reputation?
                                                                   
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court, directing Ranjit Sinha to recuse himself from the 2G spectrum case, has evoked a mixed response.  While the order assures that the court will not allow the investigation of this important case to be compromised, it simultaneously refrains from explicitly stating detailed reasons for its order.  The idea of not doing so, in the words of the court, is twofold- to protect the faith in the institution and the reputation of the director. In reality, it does neither.
Over the last few years, we have heard enormous criticism of the way the CBI has been functioning, most of it coming not merely from the opposition parties but from the judiciary too.  The apex court did its first comprehensive examination of the organisation’s functioning in the Vineet Narain case in the nineties of the last century. In that case it pulled up the CBI for showing “inertia” to investigate offences involving influential persons and directed it “not to report the progress of the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political executive.”  The court also suggested institutional and other arrangements aimed at insulating the CBI from outside influences.

All this did not prove to be of much help as the government did not implement the judgement fully and honestly.  The CBI remained vulnerable to outside pressures and continued to face stringent criticism from the court in many cases for its biased functioning.  The court slammed the investigating agency for dilly dallying in disproportionate assets cases of Mayawati and Mulayam Singh during the last decade and more recently for dragging its feet in probing the 2G case and coal block allocations during 2006-09.  Ranjit Sinha was in charge of the CBI when the court called the agency a “caged parrot.”

In short, the reputation of the institution has been besmirched over a period of time and the conduct of Sinha in the present case tarnishes it further. The reticence of the court by withholding details produces two outcomes. One, it enables the director to brazen it out and remain glued to his chair. Two, it gives rise to an impression that there is considerable evidence of Sinha’s misdemeanors.  If it is revealed, it will hurt the credibility of the organisation and its director. By withholding information, the result achieved is the opposite of what the court wants.

The government too has been somewhat reluctant to take action. Though Sinha was appointed by UPA despite objections by the BJP, the silence of the ruling party during the few months when the diary at Sinha’s residence had become public knowledge is not understandable. The government always has powers to probe into suspected misbehavior and take disciplinary action.

Besides other rules and regulations, there is a Code of Behavior for police officers prescribed by the National Police Commission and accepted by the government.  Article 3 of this Code stipulates that no police officer shall conduct himself in such a manner as is “reasonably likely to bring discredit” to the “reputation of the police force or of the police service.” Ranjit Sinha’s conduct has definitely brought discredit to himself as well as to the organisation. There is no point in saying, as some retired directors of the CBI have done in the media that the court’s order brings only the chief of the agency into disrepute and not the organisation. The image of any establishment, particularly a hierarchical organisation like the police, is made or marred to a great extent by the policies, priorities and conduct of its chief.


While deliberating the coal scam status report, the apex court had said that their “first exercise will be to liberate CBI from political interference.”  This has not happened.  The government has always been reluctant to do this exercise earnestly.  Neither the UPA nor the present NDA has come out with any law or taken other measures that will make the CBI a professionally efficient and impartial organisation.  The danger is that this Ranjit Sinha episode may provide a handle to the government to further tighten its control over the investigating agency.  Arun Jaitley has already started talking of a “gap in law” that allows Ranjit Sinha to remain in chair and the government’s inability to do anything in this regard. The gap to which Jaitley is referring is contained in sub-section 4 B (i) of section 26 of the Central Vigilance Act of 2003, according to which Director, Delhi Special Police Establishment shall “continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office.” Mr. Jaitley does not talk about the other sub section of this section, which clearly suggests that the director can be transferred with the “previous consent of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4A” This is the committee that recommends names to government for selection to the post of director. The government could have convened a meeting of this committee if it wanted to remove Sinha from his job.

Instead of using this judgement to strengthen its control over the CBI, the government as a part of its declared objective of providing good governance must take steps to make this premier investigating agency a professionally efficient, objective and impartial organisation.  The first step necessary for this purpose is to replace the antiquated and inadequate piece of legislation called the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 that governs it presently with a law that enables it to function without fear or favour, while making it accountable for its performance and conduct.

COLONIAL STRUCTURE, FEUDAL VALUES

 The Kingly Abuse of Power in the Police

                       
The boast of J&K Deputy Inspector General’s son about his father being a “real king” because “last time he put his shoes himself was almost 15 years ago” has evoked angry reactions from many quarters.

This incident cannot be dismissed merely as a young man’s pompous and self satisfied response to how his father is enjoying the perks of his job.  This incident is painful because it reflects on an agonising reality that has to be accepted.

This reality has two parts.  One, the Dy I G, J & K is not the only one; there are many other ‘kings’ in  police forces in the country.  Only two years ago, a public interest litigation came up for hearing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 11, 2012, according to which, an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police of Vigilance Department was allegedly using as many as 31 police constables and head constables as “servants.”  The Punjab Government is reported to have conducted an inquiry on receiving notice from the High Court and then suspended the officer.  The orderly system exists and is often misused.

Two, the conditions under which the police constabulary work and live in this country are harsh, humiliating and oppressive. Their salaries are low; they do not have any fixed hours of work; their job is risky and stressful; family accommodation is not available to majority; they are constantly on the move and have very little to look forward to in terms of career advancement. While delivering the fourth Nani Palkhiwala Memorial lecture in Mumbai on October 5, 2009,  Mr. P. C Chidambaram, the then Union Home Minster said that the Police Constable, “who works for 12 to 14 hours a day throughout the year is the most abused” part of the machinery.  “Everyone believes that he can be bullied, or cajoled or bribed... he is the most reviled public servant.”  He further said that the “self-esteem of average policeman is very low … and this average Police Constable is a frontline force for the internal security.”

The lower ranks in the police complain that their self-esteem is affected by the behaviour of their officers.  There are two main grievances.  One, policemen posted at the residences of senior officers as orderlies are often required to attend to the personal chores of the seniors and their family members.  Two, the seniors’ treatment of the junior police officials is generally rough and rude.  Added to these is another important factor.  The general public also look down upon the police constable as a lowly creature. We have not given the policeman a status befitting his role in society.  The policeman has a low image and this leads to a low status, which in turn perpetuates that image.  Recently, there have been many incidents where lower ranked policemen have been abused and assaulted by politicians and  public.

 All these factors combine to lower the constabulary’s esteem in their own eyes and in the society’s. A policeman with low esteem cannot be a professionally efficient or a community friendly policeman.  As observed by the National Police Commission, the manner in which police personnel at lower levels behave towards public is largely conditioned by the manner in which they are themselves treated by their own higher officers within the force. In its Vth report, the Commission observed: “No amount of exhortation from the higher ranks calling for courteous behaviour towards the public would carry conviction with the subordinates if in day to day police work these subordinates are treated with scant courtesy and consideration by the supervisory levels within the police force.”

The managerial philosophy of the police is based on distrust of the lower ranks in the organisation.  In the pre- Independence days, the natives were not to be trusted.   The Police Act of 1861 used the words “inferior officers” for those occupying the lower ranks in the police. The phrase still exists in the form of Section 7 of the Police Act of 1861, which is titled “Appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers.” A distinction between seniors and juniors in a hierarchical force is always understandable, but to categorise a small minority of senior officers as superior and a large chunk of strength as inferior smacks of a set up that is authoritarian and of values that are feudal. A Police Act, which condemned a large chunk of its force as “inferior” could hardly be expected to build it up as a professional organisation.

Even after Independence, the mind set has not changed. We have retained the same management style after Independence. The gulf between the senior officers and lower ranks is still very wide.  As Mr. Ved Marwah, a senior retired police officer has mentioned: “Unfortunately, elitism within the superior ranks has only widened the gap between the field policemen and the supervising officers. The two inhabit very different worlds. A culture of distrust of the subordinate officer has developed over the years. This needs to change if the police are to be an accountable and professional force.”
In India, we have given ourselves a democratic structure of governance, but our values are highly feudal.  In so far as the police are concerned, they are exceedingly colonial in their structure as well as values.  This is one of the reasons why the police in this country have failed to develop self esteem and professional pride.

This article with some minor changes was published in the Indian Express dated November 1, 2014