House panel not satisfied by govt reply over bill for CBI autonomy

The parliamentary committee on government assurances asserted that the government has provided an “evasive and vague” implementation report on the issue.

The Union government has informed a parliamentary committee that a bill to give autonomy to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is being considered by an interministerial group, but the panel has expressed displeasure over the reply and asked the government to provide details of the status of the bill, according to official documents and people aware of the matter.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Asserting that the government has provided an “evasive and vague” implementation report on the issue, the parliamentary committee on government assurances, in its 76th report presented in Parliament on Wednesday, said: “The committee expresses its displeasure over the fact that the ministry (of personnel, public grievances and pensions) had sidetracked the core issue related to the assurance by furnishing an evasive and vague Implementation Report.”

The report added that the committee, therefore, “recommends that the ministry furnish a revised Implementation Report giving the details and status of the draft bill for autonomy of CBI and liquidate the assurance at the earliest.”

The Committee on Government Assurances, headed by Dr M Thambidurai, investigates the extent to which a minister’s pledges, assurances, and undertakings made on the floor of the House from time-to-time. In the current case, it was examining a 2013 response by the government on autonomy to CBI.

“The ministry had been seeking extensions of time on the ground that the draft bill for autonomy of CBI was sent to department related committee and was also being considered by interministerial group. But the implementation report was silent on the issue whether the draft bill for autonomy of CBI had been finalised or not,” the report added.

In its reply, filed on December 2 last year, the ministry of parliamentary affairs submitted an implementation report by the ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions. It mentioned that the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 “had been amended through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which came into force on January 16, 2014”.

“...Section 4A of the DSPE Act was amended to provide for constitution of a selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister as Chairperson and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him as members for appointment of the Director of CBI. Also, a new section, namely section 4BA was inserted providing for a Directorate of Prosecution to be headed by a Director of Prosecution. Section 4C of the DSPE Act was also amended, providing for appointment of the officers at the level of Superintendent of Police and above, except Director, CBI, after recommendation of a Committee consisting of the CVC as the Chairperson and the vigilance commissioners, secretary ministry of home affairs (MHA) and secretary Department of personnel and training (DoPT) as Members, in consultation with the Director of CBI,” the report stated, quoting the ministry’s reply.

The government’s reply does not talk about the bill on autonomy to the agency.

CBI traces its origin to the Special Police Establishment (SPE), which was set up in 1941 to probe bribery and corruption in the transactions of war and supply during World War 2. It’s powers were extended to all central government officers in 1946 through DSPE. DSPE acquired its popular name — CBI — in April 1963.

The Supreme Court, in 2013 — during the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime — famously described CBI as a “caged parrot” speaking its master’s voice after it was submitted that a central government minister had allegedly made changes in a draft report pertaining to coal block allocation scam probe.

Union law minister Kiren Rijiju, in April this year, said CBI was no more a caged parrot, and was truly performing its duty as India’s top criminal investigation agency.

However, the government and the Opposition have constantly sparred over the role played by CBI, with several Opposition leaders, including Akhilesh Yadav and Mamata Banerjee, in the past terming the central agency a tool of the government to harass the Opposition. Yadav even said that CBI was “worse than a police station”. The government has rejected all these charges, saying it doesn’t interfere in CBI’s work.

The judiciary, too, weighed in on the issue when, addressing the 19th D P Kohli Memorial Lecture of the CBI on April 1 this year, former Chief Justice of India N V Ramana said CBI’s credibility has come under deep public scrutiny with the passage of time as its actions and inactions have raised questions in some cases. Ramana also called for creating an “independent umbrella institution” to bring various investigating agencies under one roof.