SC''s second intervention

The CBI's ball is now squarely with the Supreme Court as it tries to sift the various allegations flying against and between its two top officers, sent on enforced leave by the Government, an action that is also under challenge. This is the Supreme Court's second major intervention in the working of the Union Government's premier investigating agency. In the mid-90s, amidst instances of ministerial corruption, the Supreme Court had taken stapes to ensure CBI's autonomy. It identified a provision that required the CBI to seek prior government consultation in case of cases involving ministers or a department. This meant that the Prime Minister, who also controlled the top CBI appointment, also dominated its actions. The Court removed the requirement of government concurrence and gave the CBI director a two-year term thus leaving the institution somewhat free to probe ministerial actions on its own volition. 

It is a commentary on the half-baked nature of institutions we have evolved that the virtues of impartiality and autonomy are still not the CBI's calling cards. The Supreme Court's ``caged parrot'' observation after the CBI chief sent a status report on the coal scam for the Union Law Minister's vetting may be the most glaring instance of its lack of operational autonomy. But its clean chit to Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 riots case  or the failure to appeal on the Babri Masjid case establish that the safeguards proved inadequate in high profile political cases. It was the lesser mortals who faced the music.This apex court's second intervention ought to not just correct this lacuna. It needs to examine the system that allowed officers who are unable to handle organisations or assume mature leadership roles to reach the top after going through several screenings. At stake is the quality and moral fiber of civil servants who have underperformed in the eyes of India's educated middle classes. In an atmosphere of political disillusionment amidst a hunger for integrity, the apex court's active involvement needs to restore the faith of citizens in institutions. That can only be done by restoring lawfulness and predictability in the CBI's functioning.