Apex court again
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has intervened to secure the autonomy of the CBI. The earlier instance was two decades ago, in the Jain hawala case.
THE ONGOING CRISIS IN THE CENTRAL Bureau of Investigation (CBI), wherein the Centre has been accused of divesting its Director of his powers illegally and thereby compromising its autonomy, can well be understood if one revisits another crisis in the 1990s, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineet Narain and others vs Union of India. The 1997 judgment was rendered by Cheif Justice J.S. Verma on behalf of a bench that included Justices S.P. Bharucha and S.C. Sen.
It is not unusual to hear complaints of inertia against the CBI in matters where accusations are made against high dignitaries. Established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the premier investigative agency in the country probes corruptionrelated offences connected with the Central government and State governments and, in certain cases, violation of human rights. In the 1991 Jain hawala case, the CBI seized two diaries in the course of interrogation of two alleged Jammu and Kashmir militants and raids on the premises of an industrialist, Surendra Kumar Jain, and his brothers. The diary entries pointed to detailed accounts of vast payments made to persons identified only by initials that were believed to be high-ranking politicians and civil servants.
When the case reached the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation petition in 1993, the court was confronted with a dilemma on whether it was within the domain of judicial review to activate the investigative process, which was under the control of the executive. The court was convinced about the need to intervene in the interest of probity in public life and in order to ensure an effective mode of enforcement of accountability in public life. The need to insulate the CBI from any extraneous influence led the court to examine its structure and consider the necessary steps to ensure its reform. The court also found the need to lay down permanent measures in order to avoid ad hoc measures being taken to influence the results in a given case. The basic postulate of equality “Be you ever so high, the law is above you” guided the court in this endeavour.
The gist of the allegations in the writ petitions before the Supreme Court then was that government agencies such as the CBI and Revenue authorities had failed to perform their duties and legal obligations inasmuch as they had failed to investigate matters arising out of the seizure of the “Jain diaries”; that the apprehension of terrorists had led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means using tainted funds obtained through “hawala” transactions; and that this had disclosed a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of money from unlawful sources, given for unlawful consideration.
The CBI was accused of failing to investigate influential and powerful persons involved in the case with a view to protecting them. The matter also brought into focus a nexus between crime and corruption at high places, which posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation. It was held before the court that probity in public life, the rule of law and the preservation of democracy required government agencies to be compelled to perform their legal obligations duly and to proceed in accordance with the law against every person involved, irrespective of his or her position in the political hierarchy. Taking into consideration the direction in which the investigations were heading, the court found it necessary to direct the CBI not to report the progress of