CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

Central Bureau of Investigation is one of the most premier investigation agencies in the country and is the most trustworthy of all the agencies out there. Starting as an agency established under the Special Police Establishment (SPE) in 1941 by the then Govt. of India, it has come a long way.

Origin of CBI

Special Police Establishment was set up in 1941 by the then Govt. of India aimed at investigating into case of bribery and corruption in transactions involving the War and Supply Department of f India during the second world war. After the end of the war, the agency continued to exist and investigate into offences of bribery and corruption among government employees. The establishment was transferred to the Home Department in 1946 by the Delhi Special Establishment Act, 1946.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), functioning under Deptt. of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public Grievances, Government of India, is the premier investigating police agency in India. It is an elite force playing a major role in preservation of values in public life and in ensuring the health of the national economy. It is also the nodal police agency in India which coordinates investigation on behalf of Interpol Member countries.

Classes of cases

Over the years CBI has built up an image for professionalism and integrity. The services of its investigating officers are sought for all major investigations in the country. CBI as an organisation is held in high esteem by the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the Parliament and the public. The CBI has to investigate major crimes in the country having interstate and international ramifications. It is also involved in collection of criminal intelligence pertaining to three of its main areas of operation, viz., Anti-Corruption, Economic Crimes and Special Crimes.

CBI investigations have a major impact on the political and economic life of the nation. The following broad categories of criminal cases are handled by the CBI:

The Anti-Corruption Division of the CBI has handled cases against Chief Ministers, Ministers, Secretaries to Government, Officers of the All India Services, CMDs of Banks, Financial Institutions, Public Sector Undertakings, etc.

Cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all Central Govt. Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions.

Economic crimes, including bank frauds, financial frauds, Import Export & Foreign Exchange violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and smuggling of other contraband items etc.

Special Crimes, such as cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides, kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/the underworld.

Powers, privileges and liabilities

The legal powers of investigation of CBI are derived from the DSPE Act 1946. This Act confers concurrent and coextensive powers, duties, privileges and liabilities on the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) with Police Officers of the Union Territories. The Central Government may extend to any area, besides Union Territories, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the CBI for investigation subject to the consent of the Government of the concerned State Govt. While exercising such powers, members of the CBI of or above the rank of Sub Inspector shall be deemed to be officers in-charge of Police Stations of respective jurisdictions. The CBI can investigate only such of the offences as are notified by the Central Government under the DSPE Act.

CBI vis-a-vis State Police

Over the years, the most contentious issue has been of conflict of jurisdiction between the CBI and the state police agencies however there is a vast difference between the classes of offences they are authorised to investigate.

Since law and order are matters of State list, therefore the state police is primarily responsible for maintenance of law and order in the state which the CBI may investigate:

1. Cases which are essentially against central government employees or concerning affairs of the Central government.
2. Cases in which the financial interests of the central government are involved.
3. Cases relating to the breaches of central laws with the enforcement of which the government of India is mainly concerned.
4. Big cases of fraud, cheating, embezzlement and similar other cases when committed by organized gangs or professional criminals having ramifications in several States.
5. Cases having interstate and international ramifications and involving several official agencies where it is considered necessary that a single investigating agency should be in charge of the investigation.

Importance

The Bureau was established with the aim of establishing an investigative agency which has the resource to solve complicated crimes and in the years since its establishment, it has achieved a reputation of being able to solve a number of complicated cases. Some of the most high profile cases investigated into by the Agency are:

Priyadarshini Mattoo case

This high profile case gathered a lot of criticism over the years. A law student Priyadarshini Mattoo was killed in Delhi by her stalker, Santosh Kumar Singh who was son of a very high ranking police officer which led to inaction from the Police Authorities. The case was transferred to the CBI and after a long ordeal, the accused was eventually sentenced to death after the High Court found him guilty of rape and murder overturning the judgment of the trial court.

Bhanwari Devi Murder case

In 2011, Bhanwari Devi, aged 36, a midwife in Rajasthan was murdered.  She was said to have been in intimate relations with some politicians and over the years she had attained a lot of clout with them. Due to the involvement of the high profiled accused in case, one of whom was a minister in the State Government, the case was transferred to CBI. A lot of efforts were made to erase the evidences in the case and investigations were muddled when they were done by the State Police however the CBI, with a lot of difficulty was able to unearth the entire conspiracy was able to bring the accused to the book.

Madhumita Shukla Murder case

Madhumita Shukla was gunned down in her house in Lucknow. The post-mortem report revealed that she was seven months pregnant at the time of her death and DNA of the foetus belonged to Aman Mani Tripathi, her alleged lover, and minister in the state government. The investigation in the case was transferred to CB CID after the investigation officer refused to tow to the Government’s line. Later the investigation was transferred to the CBI which made thorough investigations into the case and filed charge-sheet against Aman Mani Tripathi and Madhumani Tripathi including two others. Due to the efforts of the CBI, he along with his wife and two others was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017.

Sister Abhaya Murder case

Sister Abhaya was a catholic sister whose dead body was found in a well in Kottayam Kerala in 1992. The local police closed the case as a suicide and the case was transferred to the crime branch which tried to strengthen the suicide theory angle with claims of psychological illness of the deceased. Following public protests and a legal battle launched by a social activist under the banner of “Sister Abhaya Case Action Council”, the Kerala High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI. The first team of CBI failed to find the reason of death and a second team was formed upon the directions of the Court. The Second team ascertained that it was a murder but there was not enough evidence leading to the murderer(s). A third team was formed which eventually found two priests and a sister responsible for the murder. Charges of murder and destruction of evidences were filed against the three and eventually they were convicted and sentenced to life in 2020.

How can CBI investigate into any offense?

CBI can investigate into an offense in any of the following ways:

1. If the offense falls into of the categories that it is authorised to investigate– If the offense in which the investigation is sought falls within any of the categories which it is authorised to investigate then the Central Govt, can direct it to launch an investigation into that offense.
2. On Central Government’s order

If the central government is of the opinion that an incident/offenses requires to be investigated into by the CBI, then it can order CBI investigation into those offenses however in those cases, it will require the consent of the concerned state government before the CBI can launch an investigation.

Most Indian states had granted general consent to the CBI to investigate crimes within their territory. However, as of 2020, several states have withdrawn their ‘general consent’ for the CBI to operate, and require a special consent to be granted on a case to case basis. Currently, nine states require prior consent before the CBI can investigate crimes in their territory.

• On Supreme Court/ High Court’s orders

The High Courts and the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to order a CBI investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed in a state without the state’s consent, according to a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals 6249 and 6250 of 2001 on 17 Feb 2010. The bench ruled:

“Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.”

However, the court clarified this is an extraordinary power which must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations.

• On recommendation of State Government

Any of the state governments can also order a CBI investigation into a case if it feels that the state police machinery is not adequately able to deal with the investigations into that case.

Legality of the CBI questioned

The Guwahati High Court in its judgment dated 06.11.2013 in Navendra Kumar v Union of India [W.A. No.119 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 6877 of 2005], held that the constitution of the CBI was an executive decision and that too, was taken without citing, or referring to, its source of power. Moreover, the same lacked presidential assent.

The Court further held that since the DSPE Act had conferred a name to its establishment, the Delhi State Police Establishment (and not CBI) the Executive is prohibited from using any other name. If a statute gives a specific name to an organization, created by the statute, it is not permissible 4to confer a new name on the organization by any executive instructions.

Thus, the Court had held that the resolution can, at best, be termed as a departmental instruction which 8cannot be termed as ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(3).

Thus, the decision had the effect of invalidating the existence of the premier agency. The order however was stayed vide a stay order issued by the Supreme Court later.

CRITICISM

1. Caged Parrot- In 2013, Judge of the Supreme Court of India (and later Chief Justice of India) R. M. Lodha criticized the CBI for being a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”, due to its excessive political interference irrespective of which party happened to be in power.
2. Political Interference- The agency has been criticised for its mishandling of several scams. It has also been criticized for dragging its feet investigating prominent politicians, such as P. V. Narasimha Rao, Jayalalithaa, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav; this tactic leads to their acquittal or non-prosecution.
3. BOFORS Scam case– In January 2006 it was discovered that the CBI had quietly unfrozen bank accounts belonging to Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, one of those accused in the 1986 Bofors scandal which tainted the government of Rajiv Gandhi. The CBI was responsible for the inquiry into the Bofors case. Associates of then-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi were linked to alleged payoffs made during the mid-1980s by Swedish arms firm AB Bofors, with US million in kickbacks moved from Britain and Panama to secret Swiss banks. The CBI also had unfroze accounts of Quattrocchi and his wife and facilitated his travel by asking Interpol to take him off its wanted list on 29 April 2009.
4. Hawala Case- A 1991 arrest of militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The Jain hawala case encompassed former Union ministers Ajit Kumar Panja and P. Shiv Shankar, former Uttar Pradesh governor Motilal Vora, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha. The 20 defendants were discharged by Special Judge V. B. Gupta in the ₹ 650-million case, heard in New Delhi. The judge ruled that there was no prima facie evidence against the accused which could be converted into legal evidence.
5. Sohrabuddin case- The CBI has been accused of supporting the ruling Congress Party against its opposition, the BJP. The CBI is investigating the Sohrabuddin case in Gujarat; Geeta Johri, also investigating the case, claimed that the CBI is pressuring her to falsely implicate former Gujarat minister Amit Shah.
6. Malankara Varghese murder case- T. M. Varghese (also known as Malankara Varghese), a member of the Malankara Orthodox Church managing committee and a timber merchant. Varghese Thekkekara, a priest and manager of the Angamali diocese of the rival Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (part of the Syriac Orthodox Church), was charged with murder and conspiracy on 9 May 2010. Thekkekara was not arrested after he was charged, for which the CBI was criticised by the Kerala High Court and the media.
7. Bhopal gas tragedy- The CBI was publicly seen as ineffective in trying the 1984 Bhopal disaster case. Former CBI joint director B. R. Lall has said that he was asked to remain soft on extradition for Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson and drop the charges (which included culpable homicide). Those accused received two-year sentences.
8. 2G spectrum case- The UPA government was accused of allocating 2G spectrum to corporations at very low prices through corrupt and illegal means. The Supreme Court cited the CBI many times for its tardiness in the investigations. It was only after the court began monitoring its investigations[59][60][61] were high-profile arrests made however all of the accused were acquitted for there was not enough evidence to hold them guilty for the offenses they were charged with.
9. Indian coal allocation scam (Coal gate scam)- This is a political scandal concerning the Indian UPA government’s allocation of the nation’s coal deposits to private companies by the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which cost the government ₹10,673.03 billion (US$150 billion). CBI director Ranjit Sinha submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court that the coal-scam status report prepared by the agency was shared with Congress Party law minister Ashwani Kumar “as desired by him” and with secretary-level officers from the prime minister’s office (PMO) and the coal ministry before presenting it to the court.
10. 2008 Noida double murder case- 14-year-old girl Aarushi Talwar and 45-year-old Hemraj Banjade from Noida, India were found murdered and parents of girl named Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were sentenced to life imprisonment for the twin murders. In January 2014, the Talwars challenged the decision in the Allahabad High Court where the High Court’s acquitted them of all charges on 12 October 2017 because of the lack of ‘irresistible proof’. The Allahabad HC in its verdict said that there were loopholes in the evidence which found the parents not guilty. Court also said that CBI tampered evidences and tutored witnesses.