INTERIM APPOINTMENTS FOR CBI DIRECTOR

• Recently, the Supreme Court told the government that interim appointments to the post of CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) Director cannot go on.
• A petition was filed in the Court, objecting to the appointment of interim CBI Director following the retirement of the regular CBI director.
• The government had failed to appoint a regular Director through the high-power selection committee of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and Leader of Opposition.
• An interim appointment through an executive order was not envisaged in the statutory scheme of the 1946 Act (Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946).
• Urged the court to direct the introduction of a mechanism to ensure that the process of selection of CBI Director is completed one or two months in advance of the retirement of the incumbent.
• In this context, the petitioner referred to the case of Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) – related to vacancies at Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions.
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that “it would be apposite that the process for filling up of a particular vacancy is initiated 1 to 2 months before the date on which the vacancy is likely to occur so that there is not much time-lag between the occurrence of vacancy and filling up of the said vacancy.”

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):

• The CBI was set up in 1963 by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• Now, the CBI comes under the administrative control of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
• The establishment of the CBI was recommended by the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964).
• The CBI is not a statutory body. It derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
• The CBI is the main investigating agency of the Central Government.
• It also provides assistance to the Central Vigilance Commission and Lokpal.
• It is also the nodal police agency in India which coordinates investigation on behalf of Interpol Member countries.

Issues

• Legal Ambiguity: Lack of clearly demarcated spheres of functioning and overlapping areas of influence severely comprises both the integrity and efficacy of the institution.
• Under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, for conduct or continuance of investigation into offences committed within the territory of a state, consent of the state is crucial.
• Weak Human Resource: Massive shortage of officers at the CBI may hamper quality of investigations and increase pendency, a Parliamentary panel said in the year 2020.
• The panel observed that 789 posts in executive ranks, 77 posts of law officers and 415 posts of technical officers and staff were lying vacant.
• Inadequate investment in personnel, training, equipment or other support structures, adversely hampers professional discharge of duties.
• High quality research and training are crucial for maintaining an effective modern police force imparting it with the operational ability to meaningfully respond to ever changing societal needs.
• In the past few decades massive strides have been made in imbibing traits of transparency and accountability into public life and institutions.
• Of equal importance is the need to maintain morale of the force by enforcing stringent internal accountability.
• Given that the superintendence and control of the agency continues to, in large measure, lie with the executive by virtue of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946, the possibility of it being used as a political instrument remains ever present.

Way Forward

• There is a need to ensure that CBI operates under a formal, modern legal framework that has been written for a contemporary investigative agency. A new CBI Act should be promulgated that ensures the autonomy of CBI while at the same time improving the quality of supervision.
• There is a need to administratively protect CBI from political interference. For this to happen, the new Act must specify criminal culpability for government interference.

SOURCE:THE HINDU,THE ECONOMIC TIMES,MINT