The recent withdrawal of the general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the Tamil Nadu government has brought to the fore several issues related to the functioning and jurisdiction of the CBI. Other states like Mizoram, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala, Jharkhand, Punjab, and Meghalaya also withdrew their consent in March 2023. This has once again highlighted the need for clarity in the functions, challenges, and required reforms in the CBI.
The Origin of the Central Bureau of Investigation
Established by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the CBI was later transferred to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and now functions as an attached office. The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption endorsed its establishment, and it operates under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.
The CBI is not a constitutional body or a statutory body. It is primarily responsible for investigating cases related to bribery, government corruption, violations of central laws, multi-state organized crime, and multi-agency or international cases.
Functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation in India
Earlier, the CBI needed to obtain prior permission from the Central Government for any inquiry or investigation involving officers above the rank of joint secretary in the Central Government and its authorities. However, this provision was deemed invalid by the Supreme Court in 2014, stating that it violated Article 14.
State governments generally give ‘general’ consent to the CBI, facilitating the seamless investigation of corruption cases against central government employees operating within their territory. If the general consent is withdrawn, the CBI would need to get case-specific consent from the state government for each investigation, thus prolonging the process.
Challenges Faced by the Central Bureau of Investigation
The CBI faces several challenges ranging from political interference, lack of autonomy, infrastructure and manpower shortages, to outdated legislation and procedural delays. Legal procedures such as obtaining search warrants, recording statements, and presenting evidence in court can lead to delays in completing investigations and securing convictions.
Need for Institutional Reforms in the Central Bureau of Investigation
Reforms are needed to enhance the independence, autonomy, and jurisdictional clarity of the CBI. The legal framework needs to be updated to address contemporary challenges and expedite investigations and trials. Technological upgrades, investment in digital forensics, data analysis, and crime mapping could also empower the agency in its functioning.
Supreme Court Observations on the Central Bureau of Investigation
In landmark observations, the Supreme Court described the CBI as “a caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice” in the Coalgate Case of 2013. In another ruling, the court held that only the selection committee, not the central government, has the power to remove or send the director of CBI on leave.
Way Forward for the Central Bureau of Investigation
For smooth functioning and operational autonomy, statutory status to the CBI has been proposed by several committees. Other suggested measures include whistleblower protection provisions, regular training and professional development programmes for CBI personnel, and a confidential reporting mechanism for those reporting misconduct.
To conclude, the ambiguous jurisdiction of the CBI and its operation within the federal structure of India have been challenged by various states. This shows that the power of states to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Understanding this aspect with special reference to the federal character of India is important for country’s governance.
