At a crossroads
The Supreme Court’s intervention to monitor the resolution of the CBI’S internal crisis is a defining moment in the agency’s history.
FOR MANY, IT WOULD APPEAR INCREDIBLE that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the premier investigative agency in the country, has been on virtual life support since 2013, when the Gauhati High Court declared its formation unconstitutional, leaving its very legal status untenable.
In the case before the High Court, the petitioner, Navendra Kumar, who was facing the CBI’S charge sheet in a corruption case, contended that the CBI was not a statutory body as it had been constituted under an Executive Order/resolution NO.4/31/61-T dated 1-04-1963, of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs although police is a State subject.
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except according to the procedure established by law. As the registration of first information reports (FIRS), arrest of persons, investigation of crimes, filing of charge sheets and prosecution of offenders, and so on would offend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21, the CBI, which was not formed as a result of any law, could not exercise these powers, the petitioner convincingly contended before the High Court.
The High Court concluded that as the Resolution did not refer to any provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, as the source of its power, the CBI could not be said to have been constituted under the Act. The Resolution constituting the CBI was thus set aside.
Almost immediately, the Supreme Court granted a stay on the High Court order and admitted the Centre’s appeal against it for hearing. The appeal has been pending, with the stay continuing since then. The interim stay is unlikely to be vacated by the Supreme Court in the near future, while there has been no plea at the Bar either to hear the merits of the appeal on priority or to vacate the stay. Nevertheless, a stay by the apex court on the operation of the High Court’s order is tantamount to “life support” for the organisation, as the vacation of the stay, for whatever reasons, would mean its abrupt end.
The current crisis within the CBI, triggered by the Centre’s unprecedented intervention to force its Director, Alok Verma, and Special Director, Rakesh Asthana, to go on leave and appoint an interim Director until the completion of the Central Vigilance Commission’s
MEDIAPERSONS
BY
V.VENKATESAN
(CVC) inquiry into allegations against them, perhaps threatens to inflict as much damage to the organisation as an abrupt vacation of the stay on the High Court’s order by the apex court.
The question asked in the aftermath of the latest midnight operation by the Centre against the CBI’S top brass is whether the Centre felt free to do so only because of the absence of a strong legal foundation for the CBI.
Perhaps realising this, the Supreme Court bench of the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph, on October 26, sought to neutralise the Centre’s decision through its specific directions to govern the interim arrangement. Thus the bench directed the CVC to complete its inquiry into the CBI Director within two weeks under the supervision of the retired Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Patnaik. Simultaneously, the bench restrained the interim Director, M. Nageshwar Rao, from taking any policy or major decisions and directed him to perform only the routine tasks that are essential to keep the CBI functional. The bench also directed the CBI to furnish a