THE CBI AND THE POLITICIANS
Two recent raids by the CBI on the properties of prominent politicians have received wide publicity. In one case, the CBI raided 14 residential premises owned by former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram. In the other case, the raids were conducted on the properties of Lalu Prasad and his family members.
Action taken by the CBI elicited similar sharp reactions from the affected parties and their supporters. It was done to silence the voices that were critical of the government and it was motivated by political considerations. Chidambaram said :”The government’s aim is to silence my voice and stop me from writing…” Lalu Prasad said that the entire exercise was a political vendetta aimed at intimidating and preventing him from organising the opposition parties against the BJP. Many political parties have supported what Lalu Prasad has said.
Politicians accused in criminal cases often come out with another reaction. “Let the law take its own course”- they fearlessly and condescendingly proclaim from the roof top. They say this because they know that law in many cases fails to take its proper course, primarily due to three reasons. Firstly, the justice system is cumbersome, dilatory and badly flawed. Secondly, the anti-corruption agencies do not function effectively, particularly against rich or politically influential people. Thirdly, law itself leaves scope for the guilty to escape unharmed by having provisions that provide impunity and can always be manipulated.
Every time the CBI has acted against a prominent politician from the opposition, it has invariably been followed by a chorus of noises against the government. The idea is not so much to attack the CBI as to declare the government as the guilty party, thereby simultaneously proclaiming oneself as an innocent victim of the vendetta politics. This was happening in the UPA days and it is happening now. The question is why has this type of response become a standard practice and how does it impact on the image of the premier investigating agency of the country.
No accused in criminal cases ordinarily admits to his or her involvement in crime. They all claim to be innocent. Therefore, the public should normally treat such hullaballoo as the wild ranting of the politicians in distress situations, but it does not always work out that way. Over a period of time, the CBI’s image has been very badly dented, partly due to their own performance and partly due to the repeated standard response that the CBI’s action in such cases is motivated by political considerations.
Though the public do not hold the politicians in this country in high esteem, this type of criticism does create a seed of doubt in the public mind that action of the CBI against government’s opponents is not always straight and honest. There is a public perception that the CBI, like other police forces in the country, is influenced in its work by the party in power. The crooked politicians take advantage of this public perception. Even where action taken against them is perfectly legitimate and is as per the law, they invariably pose as victims of political vendetta and witch hunting. It is easy and convenient to attack the CBI by calling it a handmaiden of the party in power. Becoming a victim of political revenge fetches them greater sympathy than other arguments.
Regrettably, the public perception about the CBI becoming highly politicised is supported by facts. In some cases against ruling party politicians, the CBI has shown either reluctance to take up investigation or when forced to do so, adopted dilatory tactics. It has also shown considerably uncharacteristic zeal in pursuing cases against politicians in opposition and has sometimes been shamelessly brazen in shifting its stand depending on the accused’s equation with the party in power. CBI’s dealings with cases involving Mayawati and Mulayam Singh during UPA’s rule often invited scathing criticism from the Supreme Court on this ground.
The CBI is a central police organisation and it is the central government’s responsibility to make it professionally strong and impartial. Lamentably enough, it has not done much in this direction. On occasions, the central government has, in fact, issued orders scuttling the powers of the CBI, making it dependent on the government in conducting its operations.
The CBI figures in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Considering the importance that the framers of the Constitution had attached to the organisation, it is rather strange, indeed ironical, that its working is still governed by an outdated Act of Second World War vintage, called the Delhi Police Establishment Act, which was enacted in 1946 for a limited purpose.
If the CBI has to function as an impartial and effective organisation, certain measures are essential. One of these is to enact a law, which must define the status, functions and powers of the CBI and its relationship with the government, not allow anyone to enjoy impunity and establish effective institutional arrangements to insulate the organisation against illegitimate outside pressures and influences. The Supreme Court on occasions made attempts to provide it the type of insulation it requires, but unfortunately failed. Let the law do it now.
