The government’s decision to appoint an interim director for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) bypassing the selection procedure provided in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
NGO Common Cause filed a petition on Thursday seeking urgent directions from the court to the Centre to initiate and complete the process of the selection of CBI director and to ensure that the process is initiated at least one or two months before the post is to become vacant. The petition is yet to be listed before the court.
Also Read | SC to hear women officers’ petitions for permanent commission in Army, Navy
The NGO has approached the court through advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging the decision taken by the Centre on February 3, 2021 to appoint Pravin Sinhas as an interim or acting director till the appointment of a new director or until further orders. This order was required as the two-year term of CBI director Rishi Kumar Shukla came to an end on February 2. He was appointed by an order issued by the Department of Personnel and Training on February 2, 2019 for a two-year tenure, after the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
The petition said, “The director of the CBI is the final authority in the organisation. He supervises all the work in the CBI and is responsible for constitution of investigating teams for probing cases. Hence, this court and later even Parliament have made determined efforts to enhance the functional autonomy of the CBI director and limit the extent of executive discretion in the matter of appointment of this key functionary.”
{{/usCountry}}The petition said, “The director of the CBI is the final authority in the organisation. He supervises all the work in the CBI and is responsible for constitution of investigating teams for probing cases. Hence, this court and later even Parliament have made determined efforts to enhance the functional autonomy of the CBI director and limit the extent of executive discretion in the matter of appointment of this key functionary.”
{{/usCountry}}Bhushan, who drafted the petition, said that Section 4A of the DSPE Act provides for a high-powered committee headed by Prime Minister and comprising the leader of single largest Opposition Party and the Chief Justice of India (or any judge of the Supreme Court nominated by CJI) to recommend the name of the CBI director. This process was not followed by the Centre as the work on appointment of the new director ought to have begun two months before the previous director retired last month.
The same NGO had approached the Supreme Court in the year 2016 for the appointment of a regular director of CBI after the government had attempted to appoint an interim director. “Now the same issue has cropped up again, which has to be dealt with utmost seriousness in view of the sheer power that vests with the important office of a CBI director,” the petition stated.
Since the CBI is probing cases involving rampant corruption in high places in the country, the unwillingness of the government to institute a transparent and accountable system to ensure that the culprits are punished seriously impairs the right of the people to live in a corruption and crime free society which violates Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the citizens, added the petition.