DEPARTMENT RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE
ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
TWENTY FOURTH REPORT
ON
WORKING OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA
ON 11TH MARCH, 2008)
(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON
11TH MARCH, 2008)
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI
1. Composition of the Committee
2. INTRODUCTION
3. Report
4*. RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
5*.
Annexure –
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2007-08)
(Constituted on 5th
August, 2007)
1. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan ¾ Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2. Dr. Radhakant Nayak
3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
4. Shri Balavant alias Bal Apte
5. Shri Virendra Bhatia
6. Shri Tariq Anwar
7. Shri Ram Jethmalani
8. Dr. P.C. Alexander
9. Shri Tarlochan Singh
10. Vacant
LOK SABHA
11. Shri Raj Babbar
12. Dr. Shafiqur Rahman Barq
13. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan
14. Shri Chhattar Singh Darbar
15. Shri N.Y. Hanumanthappa
16. Shri S.K. Kharventhan
17. Shri A. Krishnaswamy
18. Dr. C. Krishnan
19. Shri Shailendra Kumar
20. Shri Harin Pathak
21. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel
22. Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan
23. Prof. M. Ramadass
24. Shri Bhupendrasinh Solanki
25. Shri Vishvendra Singh
26. Shri Anirudh Prasad alias Sadhu Yadav
27. Vacant
28. Vacant
29. Vacant
30. Vacant
31. Vacant
I, the Chairman of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee to submit this Report on its behalf, do hereby present its Twenty Fourth Report on the “Working of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)”. The Committee identified§ the subject ‘Working of CBI” in September, 2004 for examination and report.
2. As part of consideration of the subject, the Committee undertook study visits to the CBI Academy at Ghaziabad in January, 2005 and thereafter at other parts of the country and held discussions with the Regional Officers of CBI at Mumbai, Goa, Bangalore and Orissa. The Committee also visited the CBI Headquarters at New Delhi on 2nd August, 2007 and held discussions with CBI top brass. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions made a presentation on the subject before the Committee on 20th September, 2007. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs also tendered oral evidence before the Committee on the subject on 4th October, 2007.
3. While considering the subject, the Committee took note of the following documents/information placed before it: —
(i)
Annual
report of the CBI (2005-06);
(ii)
Replies
furnished by CBI, in response to the queries raised by the Committee;
(iii)
Reports
of various Committees on CBI or related issues;
(iv)
Various
judgments of the Supreme Court of India; and
(v)
Views/comments
received from the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice and
Department of Revenue of the Ministry of
Finance on the subject.
4. The Committee adopted the Report in its meeting held on 4th March, 2008.
5. For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report.
New Delhi; Dr.
E. M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN
4th March, 2008 Chairman
Committee on Personnel,
Public Grievances, Law and Justice
EVOLUTION
AND GROWTH OF CBI
1.1. At an early stage of the World
War-II, the Government of India realized that vast increase in expenditure for
war efforts had provided opportunities to unscrupulous and anti-social persons,
both officials and non-officials, for indulging in bribery and corruption at
the cost of public and the Government.
It was felt that Police and other Law Enforcement Agencies under the
State Governments were not in a position to cope with the situation. An executive order was, therefore, passed by
the Government of India in 1941, setting up the Special Police Establishment
(SPE) under a Deputy Inspector General in the then Department of War with
mandate to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in transactions with
which War and Supply Department of the Government of India was concerned.
1.2. At the end of 1942, the activities of
the SPE were extended to include cases of corruption on railways also,
presumably because the railways were vitally concerned with movement and supply
of war materials. In 1943, to remove doubts about the legal powers of police
officers working with SPE, an Ordinance was promulgated by the Government of
India, by which a Special Police Force was constituted for the investigation of
certain offences committed in connection with the departments of the Central
Government, with powers to investigate such offences anywhere in British
India. Even after the end of the war,
need for a Central Government Agency to investigate cases of bribery and
corruption was felt and, therefore, the Ordinance promulgated in 1943, which
had lapsed on 30th September, 1946 was replaced by Delhi Special
Police Establishment Ordinance of 1946. This was subsequently replaced by Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
After the commencement of the Act, superintendence of SPE was
transferred to the Home Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all
departments of the Government of India.
The jurisdiction of SPE was extended to all the Union territories and
could be extended to the States with the consent of the State Governments. The
Headquarters was shifted to Delhi and the organisation was put under the charge
of Director, Intelligence Bureau.
However, in 1948, a post of Inspector General of Police, SPE was created
and the organization was placed under his charge.
1.3. In 1953, an Enforcement Wing was added
to the SPE to deal with offences under the Import and Export Control Act. With the passage of time, more and more
cases under various laws other than Prevention of Corruption Act and violations
of Import and Export Control Act also came to be entrusted to the SPE. In fact, by 1963 SPE was authorized to
investigate offences under 91 different sections of Indian Penal Code and 16
other Central Acts besides offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947.
1.4. A growing need was felt for a Central
Police Agency at disposal of the Central Government which would investigate not
only cases of bribery and corruption, but also violation of Central fiscal
laws, major frauds relating to Government of India departments, public joint
stock companies, passport frauds, crimes on the high seas, crimes on the
Airlines and serious crimes committed by organised gangs and professional
criminals. Therefore, the Government of
India set up Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by a resolution dated 1st
April, 1963.
1.5. Excluding
three divisions, namely, the Crime Records Division, Central Forensic Science
Laboratory and Central Finger Print Bureau, Calcutta, which function under the
Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Personnel is responsible for the
overall supervision of the work, formulation of policy of the Government
thereto and attending to the administrative matters relating to the CBI. Budgetary provision for the expenses of the
CBI is made in the budget of the Ministry of Personnel. The Ministry also provides channel of
communication in some matters between CBI and the State Governments for
launching prosecution in CBI cases in which the State Governments are the
competent authority to give such consent, in the engagement of Special Counsels
in CBI cases, in filing appeals and revision petitions against the judgments of
Lower Courts of CBI cases and in getting the consent of the State Governments
for extending the jurisdiction and powers of the SPE under the DSPE Act, 1946,
to investigate specific offences under the various Central/State Acts.
1.6. By now, the CBI has evolved into a
multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary investigative agency, its role expanding from
the corruption cases to other cases viz – cyber crimes, terrorist
crimes, wildlife crimes, narcotics, arms trafficking, arts and antiquities
cases, counterfeiting of currencies etc.
Functioning of
CBI
2. At
present CBI derives the power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946. As per section 2 of the Act, DSPE has jurisdiction to
investigate offences in the Union Territories only. However, the jurisdiction
can be extended by the Central Government to other areas including Railway
areas and States under section 5(1) of the Act, provided the State Governments
have accorded consent under section 6 of the Act. The superintendence of Delhi
Special Police Establishment vests with the Central Government whereas for
investigations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the
superintendence vests with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
3. Director,
CBI who is an Inspector General of Police under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, is responsible for the administration of the organization.
Director, CBI has been provided security of tenure in CBI by the CVC Act, 2003
and he can continue to hold office for a period not less than two years from
the date on which he assumes office, notwithstanding anything contrary in the
conditions of service. The CVC Act also provides mechanism for selection of
Director, CBI and other officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and
above in CBI.
4. At
present, CBI has the following Divisions:
(1)
Anti Corruption
Division;
(2)
Economic Offences
Division;
(3)
Special Crimes Division;
(4)
Directorate of
Prosecution;
(5)
Administration Division;
(6) Policy
and Coordination Division; and
(7) Central
Forensic Science Laboratory.
5. Following the Supreme Court
judgment of 18th December, 1997 in the Vineet Narain case, the Directorate of Prosecution was set up in CBI in September, 2001. This Directorate
is responsible for conducting prosecution of CBI cases in Courts and giving
legal advice to CBI officers. One of the important jobs of the Directorate of
Prosecution is preparation of panel of Counsels to conduct prosecution.
6. The
CBI, through its Policy and Coordination Division, coordinates investigation
for the members of INTERPOL. The CBI
has also set up a Cyber Crime Investigation and Research Cell which besides
doing research in this field caters to the long felt need of the investigating
agencies also. It has also set up Criminal Intelligence Cell.
7. In 1994, the structure of CBI was organised into following
Divisions: (i) Anti Corruption Division (ACD) (ii) Special Crime Division
(SCD) (iii) Economic Offences
Division (EOD). They are Investigating Divisions.
8. Anti Corruption Division investigates cases of corruption and
frauds committed by public servants of all the Central Government Departments,
Central Public Sector Undertakings and Financial Institutions. The Special
Crime Division investigates into cases of terrorism, bomb blast, sensational
homicide, kidnapping, murder and crimes committed by the mafia/underworld.
Economic Offences Division investigates economic crimes, including bank frauds,
cheating, financial frauds, Import, Export and Foreign Exchange violations,
large scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques and other contraband items.
DELIBERATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE
9. The
Committee takes note of the work done by CBI over the last six decades. The Committee observes that there have been
big events or scams rocking the nation wherein CBI is said to have restored
public faith in the system and has ensured that the supremacy of law reigns
ultimately. But the Committee feels
that whether CBI has been able to fulfill the expectations of the public and
its legal mandate is debatable. The Committee also notes that there has been
erosion in the confidence which the public reposed on CBI in certain
matters. Having said that, it is also
true that whenever a high profile crime is committed or when the State police
fails to investigate a case properly, there is always a demand for an
investigation by the CBI. The Committee
feels that this may be due to the fact that the expectations of the public are
very high from CBI which is the premier investigating agency in the country and
that CBI has, due to various reasons, not been able to rise up to the
expectations in certain cases. Some
Members of the Committee felt that there is political interference in the
functioning of CBI and stressed upon the need to ensure independent and
autonomous functioning of CBI. The Committee also voiced concern about undue
delay in the investigation of cases by CBI.
10. The
Committee also notes that the Courts including the Supreme Court of India are
consistently entrusting several cases to CBI which involve delicate issues that
have serious inter-State and international ramifications. Some Members of the Committee were of the view that State Governments, on
account of political considerations, refer cases to CBI which should have been
investigated by the State police. The Committee feels that these attribute to
increase in the workload of the already overburdened CBI. The Committee notes that the expansion of
CBI mandate has not been accompanied by commensurate expansion and augmentation
of the infrastructure and resources within CBI. Therefore, the Committee
strongly feels that strengthening the CBI in terms of resources and legal
mandate is the remedy to this problem.
11. The
Committee takes note of demands raised from various quarters that an all India
agency/ agencies should be created for tackling corruption, transnational,
terrorist and organized crimes. The
Committee is of the opinion that creation of more and more agencies would apart
from involving more resources which are already scarce, lead to overlapping of
jurisdictions, conflict of interests, underutilization of human resources and
lack of synergy, which would be detrimental to the cause of our criminal
justice system. Furthermore, huge expenditure which will be incurred for
creation of massive infrastructure and allied facilities all over the country
may not give the desired results.
12. In view of the above, the Committee is of
the unanimous opinion that the need of the hour is to strengthen the CBI in
terms of legal mandate, infrastructure and resources. The Committee feels that the issues elucidated below
require urgent and utmost attention and that serious consideration and
effective implementation of the same would go a long way in transforming CBI
into a truly world class multidisciplinary investigation agency.
12.1. The
Committee is of the opinion that the following are the main areas of concern
which have been dealt with in succeeding Chapters of the report:
i. Human
Resources;
ii. Infrastructural
Facilities;
iii. Financial
and Administrative Empowerment;
iv. Directorate
of Prosecution;
v. Separate
enactment – all of the abovementioned aspects may be incorporated in a separate
statute under the title “Central Bureau
of Intelligence and Investigation Act”.
CHAPTER-II
13. HUMAN RESOURCES
13.1. The
Committee is of the opinion that human resources is the strongest asset of an
organisation and strongly feels that holistic development, effective management
and optimum utilization of human resources have important bearing on the over
all functioning of the organisation.
The extent of development of an organization can be gauged by the
content and contentedness of its human resources. As regards CBI, the Committee
feels that the following aspects related to human resources need urgent
attention.
13.2 Deputationist nature of the organisation
13.2.1. The Committee could
gather that when the CBI was formally constituted, it had no officers and that
for immediate and near-term purposes, officers were then recruited on
deputation from the Indian Police Service at the supervisory level, and from
the State Police at the subordinate levels. Simultaneously, Recruitment Rules
also allowed for the direct recruitment of officers through SSC and UPSC at the
entry levels of Constable, Sub-Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police
respectively, so that over a period of time, these officers shall form the
nucleus cadre of the organisation and help run it in all its essentials.
13.2.2. The Committee is of the opinion
that investigation, or the ascertainment of truth on the bedrock of admissible
evidence in accordance with the law is a delicate task. It is of the opinion
that investigative skills are specialized skills that are acquired, shaped and
honed over a period of time with the direct benefit of field-oriented practical
experience and habitual application and testing of skills and skill-oriented
training in the Training Institutes and the field.
13.2.3. The Committee also feels that the
chief distinguishing difference between police personnel and CBI personnel is
specialization. While the typical police officer in the State Police is
responsible for a host of duties ranging from the preservation/maintenance of
law and order and public tranquility, provision of security to VIPs,
processions etc. and investigation, the typical CBI officer is responsible for
only one thing i.e., investigation. The Committee could gather that the State
Police personnel are bereft of experience in many jobs which CBI personnel are
routinely engaged in.
13.2.4. The Committee feels that the
perspective of the State Police forces is more focused on crime and law and
order aspects and not so much on national security imperatives. It notes that the State police lack
knowledge about inter-State/international dimensions of crimes on hand and that
they often lack adequate resources and expertise to deal with complexities of
investigation in cases which are multifarious and multidisciplinary in nature.
13.2.5.
In this backdrop, the Committee does not agree with the proposition/argument
that deputation is encouraged in CBI in order to prevent vested interests. It
is of the considered opinion that this is devoid of justification and feels
that in an organisation like CBI, esprit d’ corps and departmental loyalty are
indispensable.
13.2.6 . The Committee observes that
deputation at the inceptional stage of the CBI was an unavoidable necessity
owing to shortage of officers. Its
continuation today is an avoidable luxury owing to availability of adequate
numbers of competent departmental officers, whose numbers can be replenished
through recourse to direct recruitment.
13.2.7.
The Committee understands that officers coming on deputation from the States
may not be aware or familiar with the nuances of specialized investigation
which CBI personnel engage in. This leads to logjams in decision-making
inasmuch as a lot of time gets consumed in the process of deputationist
officers getting familiarized with the various methods of investigation adopted
in CBI.
13.2.8.
The Committee also notes that the departmental officers are not the
decision-making class within the CBI and that all important posts within the
CBI are manned by IPS deputationist officers.
Further, the promotional prospects for departmental officers have been
progressively worsened over the last three decades to make the CBI the least
attractive option for potential young officers in the open market.
13.2.9.
The Committee observes that while departmental officers have acquired
commendable professional competence, even expertise in niche areas like
securities and finance transactions, defence purchase-related transactions,
abuse of official position-related decisions, custodial death-related cases,
fake encounter-related matters, most of the officers on deputation, to some
extent, lag behind in dealing with such matters. It has also come to the notice of the Committee that officers
without sufficient experience of service and knowledge are inducted on deputation
for complicated job in CBI.
13.2.10.
The Committee notes that at present there are prospects of absorption into CBI
for deputationists personnel. This results in junior deputationists, on
absorption, being promoted to higher ranks while the direct recruits continue
to stagnate at much lower ranks, resulting in consequential
demoralization. Furthermore, there are
high chances of the deputationists resorting to the policy of appeasement in
order to be absorbed into the organisation.
The Committee apprehends that such tendencies may divert the attention
of the officers from their job on hand since they are more prone to giving
greater attention to their personal career gains.
13.2.10.1. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note
that the Committee set up in CBI to study the “Empowerment of the Investigating
Officer” in 2005 had observed that “there appears to be an unspoken and
underlying grouse with the direct CBI officers regarding the absorption of
deputationists and fixing of their seniority vis-à-vis the absorbed
officers. There have been instances
where very junior deputationists with hardly 10 years of service, on absorption
were promoted as Additional Supdt. of Police in the CBI. On the other hand the direct recruits of CBI
continue to stagnate at much lower ranks”. The Committee had, in view of the
above, recommended that the deputationist officers should not be absorbed in
the CBI.
13.2.10.2. The issue of deputation in CBI repeatedly
came to the centre stage during the deliberations of the Committee. The Members
of the Committee were of the opinion that the deputation quota should be
prescribed with reference to the nature of the job and that the number of
deputationists at the junior levels particularly, should be relatively small,
so that the interests of the cadre officers would not be detrimentally
affected.
13.2.10.3. Taking into account the abovementioned
aspects, the Committee is of the opinion that the deputationists bring in
varied experience with them because of their exposure to different kind of
situations in their parent department. At the same time, the Committee strongly
feels that less dependence should be placed on deputation and that the
deputation policy should be so framed that it does not adversely affect the
promotion prospects of direct CBI officers.
13.2.10.4. The Committee recommends that in the event of
vacancies not being filled up in the deputationists cadre, those vacancies
should be filled up by seeking recruitment from the permanent cadre of CBI. The
Committee further recommends that the deputationists who are serving in CBI at
present, or till a particular time limit to be fixed by the Government, should
be given the option to be absorbed in the organisation.
13.2.11.
The Committee is of the view that while appointing the Director, CBI all things
being equal, preference should be given to the person with the prescribed
qualifications and who has experience working in the organization. It is of the opinion that such a person will
be well conversant with all the departments and wings in the organisation and
will be able to address day to day problems arising in the organization, render
effective leadership to the personnel and the organization and mould CBI into a
specialized agency.
13.3. Shortage of manpower
13.3.1.The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions while tendering oral evidence before the Committee, stated that in
most of the Central Police Organizations at certain levels, it has not been
possible to induct All India Service or IPS officers from the States and that
in the last 15 years, there has been a considerable decline in the number of
people coming forward for recruitment in Police Service and that it was a
decision which was taken in the past for reasons of economy. He also stated
that the number of people recruited in the IPS was reduced and that as a
result, States themselves found it difficult to spare the services of young
officers for the CBI, like they find it difficult to spare such officers for
any other Government of India appointment.
13.3.2. He further stated that apart from that, for the last seven
years, the Government has put in place optimization scheme, under which
two-thirds of regular recruited posts in any Government Department should be
abolished for the sake of economy. He deposed that the question of exemption
was there in certain organisations and that the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions would like the CBI to be exempted from the scheme.
13.3.3.As per the Annual Report of CBI for the year 2006, the
total sanctioned strength of CBI as on 31.12.2006 was 5959. However, the actual
manpower available was 4652 and as many as 1307 posts were lying vacant at the
end of the year. The vacancies in the executive cadres were mainly in the ranks
of Joint Director- 6, Deputy Inspector General of Police-5, Sr. Supdt. of Police-1, Supdt. of
Police-24, Addl. Supdt. of Police-15, Dy. Supdt. of Police-118, Inspector-168, Sub.
Inspector-95, Asstt. Sub Inspector-24, Head Constables-42, Constables-134+95.
Besides there were vacancies of 75 Law Officers at various levels. 94 Technical
posts were also vacant.
13.3.4. The Committee notes
that as per existing austerity measure of
the Government, direct recruitment has been limited to one-third of the direct
recruitment vacancies arising in a year subject to a further ceiling that this
should not exceed 1% of the total sanctioned strength, resulting in filling up
only a fraction of vacancies during a year. Moreover, vacancies under direct recruitment
quota could not be filled up for want of clearance of the Screening Committee.
13.3.5. The Committee could gather that most of the vacancies
are of Direct Recruitment quota, which is filled up through Union Public
Service Commission/ Staff Selection Commission. However, these recruitment
procedures are complicated, outmoded, lethargic and lengthy, thereby causing
delay in filling of the vacancies.
13.3.6. The Committee expresses deep
concern over the prevailing vacancies in CBI. It is of the opinion that the
large number of vacancies is bound to result in severe strain on the existing
manpower who are hard pressed to deliver positive results and that it is
detrimental to professional excellence and efficiency. The
Committee feels that despite repeated recommendations by this Committee in its
pervious Reports on the Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, adequate steps have not so far been taken to overcome
this persisting problem. It is of the view that if this situation is allowed to
continue for long, there could be serious repercussions on the functioning of
CBI and that this needs a serious and positive thinking on the part of Central
Government.
13.3.7. The Committee recommends that
the Government should augment its efforts to make suitable amendments in the
relevant Recruitment Rules and that steps should be taken on a war footing
basis to fill up the vacancies within three months. The Government should also take necessary action for
need-based augmentation in staff strength in the CBI so that it can rise up to
the people’s expectations.
13.3.8.1. The Committee was informed that prior
approval/clearance of the Surplus Cell in the Central Government is required to
be taken before filling up the vacancies under direct recruitment quota and
that in the absence of clearance of the Surplus Cell, recruitment cannot be
done. In view of the serious manpower
problem in the CBI, the Committee recommends that the requirement of prior
approval of the Screening Committee constituted by the Government, for filling
of direct recruitment vacancies should be waived for CBI as a special case.
13.3.8.2. The Committee strongly feels that more powers should
be delegated to the CBI for the selection process of its officials in tune with
the requirement of the organisation. This would help in better assessment of
the suitability of recruits for the CBI.
The Committee recommends that the
Director, CBI, being the head of the organisation should be made a full-fledged
member of the CBI Selection Committee for choosing all officers for induction
into the CBI. As he is fully aware of the requirements of the organisation, he
can be the right person to assess the suitability of an officer for the CBI.
13.3.8.3. The
Committee noted that as per Ministry of
Finance vide its O.M. No. 7(7) –E(Coord)/93 dated 03.05.1993, if a post remains
vacant for more than one year, that will be treated as “deemed abolished” and
before filling up the same, approval of the Department of Expenditure will be
required for its revival. The Committee
notes that revival of such posts is a very lengthy process. It recommends that
reduction of staff strength at any level on ground of austerity measure should
not be resorted to in this premier investigating agency of the country.
13.3.8.4. The
Committee was informed that the induction
of officers in the ranks of Dy. SP and Addl. SP is done through the Union
Public Service Commission (UPSC), which is a very lengthy process. The
Committee was also apprised that in case of Departmental Promotion Committees
(DPCs), delay occurs on the part of Union Public Service Commission.
13.3.8.4.1. During the deliberations of the Committee, it was pointed out that
scientific bodies such as the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR)
has its own rules for recruitments and that they constitute their own DPC which
takes decisions on promotions and that everything is internalized within that
organisation. It was felt that granting such powers to an organisation helps in
ensuring professionalism and efficiency. A view emerged that CBI should be
given the powers to recruit its own staff and to conduct their DPCs.
13.3.8.4.2. In view of the above, the Committee is of the opinion that
general recruitment by UPSC and allotment by option of residuary personnel
makes the status of CBI reduced to an
ordinary police force. It strongly
feels that CBI needs professionals and experts in various fields and not the
general category of personnel, following the colonial mode of recruitment. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the
recruitment at various cadres/levels should be made by CBI itself based on the
requirements of the organization.
13.3.8.4.3. The Committee recommends that the Government may consider to
amend the recruitment rules of CBI so as to delink the consultations in respect
of DPCs with the UPSC for speedy filling up of the vacancies. It is of the
opinion that an officer each of the UPSC and DOPT can be included in the DPCs.
Till such a method is put in place, an effective mechanism should be chalked
out in order to ensure that DPCs of CBI personnel are not delayed in UPSC. This
is needed to ensure quick career progression in CBI.
13.3.8.5. The CBI had submitted, in its written reply, that in
order to ensure better age profile, smooth career progression and for
substantial advantage to the organization in terms of better quality induction,
CBI has recommended to recruit officers at the level of Inspector instead of
Sub-Inspector (SI) level and that this was also be required keeping in view
that under Prevention of Corruption Act, no officers below the rank of
Inspector can investigate a case under the Act, and hence the strength of SI in
CBI largely remains unutilized/under utilized so far as investigation is
concerned. The Committee recommends that
the Ministry should examine this proposal in all seriousness and adopt
necessary steps to implement the proposal of CBI.
13.4. Training
13.4.1. The
Committee is of the opinion that the unfailing strength of CBI has been, and will
always be, its personnel. It feels that
specialised investigation and professional upgradation of skills is the need of
the hour. Therefore, it is of the opinion that holistic development and quality
upgradation of human resources should be given utmost priority while defining
institutional priorities, goals and objectives.
13.4.2. The Committee held extensive interaction with
the CBI officials during its visit to the CBI Academy at Ghaziabad in January,
2005. It has been long felt that more funds should be provided for training of
CBI personnel, along with modern facilities, equipments and gadgetry. The
Committee is of the opinion that long term planning should be envisaged to
ensure that each and every personnel in CBI is trained to realize their full
potential and to ensure that they are capable of rendering their duties
effectively. The Committee recommends that the Training Centres in CBI should
be given adequate funds and all facilities and attempts should be made to
increase the number of such centres and resources crunch should not be a reason
to affect the training aspect of the CBI personnel.
13.4.3.
The Committee recommends that training should not only be confined to
entry-level personnel, rather it should be expanded to middle and senior level
officials also. Training module should be upgraded and modernised taking cue
from the best in the world, and a sound research base should be developed in
this regard. The Committee further recommends that mandatory in-service
training should be laid down as precondition for promotion. It recommends that
adequate funds should be granted without fail for training purposes and that
zealous steps should be taken to develop the CBI Academy into a training centre
of excellence in the world.
13.4.4.
The Committee further recommends that as regards training in technical
field, the inputs from experts in the respective fields should be made use of,
by utilizing their expertise as guest faculty.
This will enable the CBI personnel to be updated of the latest technological
advancements and innovations. Moreover,
the Committee recommends that the permanent faculty in CBI should be
periodically sent for systematic specialized training to enhance their
knowledge.
13.5. Special Incentive Allowance
13.5.1. The
Committee notes that though the fees for Special Counsels and Retainer Counsels
have recently been increased as stated in the Annual Report of CBI for the year
2006, the fee structure of CBI counsels appear to be far from satisfactory
which can not attract the best legal brains for this premier investigating
agency.
13.5.2. The Committee is of the view
that since the defence counsels are paid exorbitant fees by the accused who are
wealthy and mighty, the CBI counsels should also be paid the best incentives so
that they too are motivated to put in their best expertise and knowledge and
maintain high professional standards.
13.5.3. The CBI has submitted, in its written reply, that at
present, the prosecution and technical staff are not entitled to Special
Incentive Allowance. The Committee recommends that Special Incentive
Allowance should also be granted to the prosecution and technical staff so as
to attract best talent. This would ensure that finest talent is attracted to
its fold and that the motivation levels of the staff are kept high. It also
recommends that Training Allowance should be granted to all ranks of the staff
in the CBI Academy.
13.5.4. The
Committee observes that the very nature of work in CBI is such that it
inherently involves a lot of out-station visits/travel by the Investigating
Officers and their teams. The Committee feels that they should be
enabled access to decent accommodation, transportation, communication and other
facilities. The Committee recommends
that an enabling mechanism should be put in place for periodic review of
applicable TA/DA rates on a six-monthly basis to preclude incurment of losses
by CBI officers in the course of their duties on outstation visits.
13.5.5. The Committee endorses the
recommendation made by the Committee set up in CBI to study “Empowerment of the
Investigating Officer” in 2005, that a suitable method should be found to
reimburse the Investigation Officers (IOs), the expenditure incurred by them on
local transport utilized for performance of official duty and that on
submission of TA bills along with Case Diaries, the Branch SP may satisfy
himself about the correctness of the claim made and then reimburse the
expenditure incurred on local transport by the Investigating Officer. The Committee also concurs with the
recommendations of the abovementioned Committee regarding the perks to be
granted to the IOs.
13.6.1. The Committee notes that the
problem of residential accommodation for CBI personnel has assumed a serious
dimension and that lack of proper housing facility has a negative impact on the
morale of the CBI personnel whose job profile is difficult and arduous. The Committee is of the opinion that in order to ensure optimum productivity
in an organisation, efforts should be made by the organisation to ensure that
there is a well thought out support network within the system. This includes
providing basic amenities to the personnel and their families. This would
ensure maximum workforce satisfaction and less stress levels. The Committee recommends that since the
personnel in CBI investigate and prosecute high profile offenders who are
resourceful and mighty, at the risk of their life and their families too, steps
should be taken to ensure that their families have a roof over their heads and
are well protected. This is more so
important because the job nature of the CBI personnel demands frequent
outstation travels for long durations.
13.6.2. The Committee could gather that
the Government is taking steps to improve the satisfaction level of residential
accommodation for CBI Officers/Staff. For this purpose, apart from allotting
the residential accommodation from the Directorate of Estates, Government of
India General pool, 1444 residential quarters of different types have been
constructed at different stations in the country for allotment to
Officers/Staff members of CBI only. Further efforts are being made either to
purchase ready built quarters or to construct the same on the available land.
13.6.3. The
Committee notes that the satisfaction level in terms of residential
accommodation in CBI is about 27 per cent and feels that it needs to be raised
to at least 60-70 percent. It observes that the initiatives taken by the
Government in this regard are inadequate and adhoc and falls far short of a
holistic situation.
13.6.4. In view of the above, the
Committee recommends the following:
(i) CBI may be allowed to purchase ready built flats in all metropolitan cities where the satisfaction level is below the prescribed norms and requisite funds for the same should be provided; and
(ii) Budget allocation under this Head should be enhanced considerably and all proposals forwarded by the CBI should be expeditiously processed.
13.6.5.
The Committee strongly recommends that serious efforts should be made in a time
bound and systematic manner in this regard.
13.7. Postings and transfers
13.7.1. The
Committee feels that postings and transfers have an important bearing on the
morale of personnel and is of the opinion that the welfare of the staff and
their families should also be kept in mind while effecting the same. Since unfair postings and transfers have a
demoralizing effect on the personnel, the transfer policy of the organisation
should be transparent and should be applied without exception. The Committee endorses the recommendation
made by the Committee formed in CBI to study the “Empowerment of Investigating
Officers” in 2005, that while transferring officials, academic session should
always be taken into consideration so that the academics of their children do
not suffer at any cost.
13.7.2. The Committee notes that there is perennial
problem of shortage of officers in difficult regions like North East, Jammu and
Kashmir and Port Blair. The Committee feels that this problem
should be addressed in a holistic manner and recommends that the Government
should chalk out an effective solution to this problem, by granting special
financial packages/facilities etc. to the personnel who are posted in such
areas/terrains. The Committee recommends that the policy of compulsory rotation
should be implemented to tackle this problem.
13.8.1. The Committee notes that stress is an
increasing feature of the work place in an organisation like CBI. It is of the opinion that well being of the
staff should be key concern and that efforts should be made to ensure that the
work environment is made as stress free as possible. The Committee opines that keeping in view the hectic job nature of the
CBI personnel, proper recreational facilities and library services should be
provided to them.
13.8.2. The Committee recommends that serious thought
should be given to grant the CBI personnel and their families multi-utilitarian
insurance policies on a Group Scale and greater medical and clinical access,
keeping in view their hectic job profile and work related stress characteristic
to their job. The Committee feels that this would go a long way to incentivize
and galvanize the proactive performance of the personnel in CBI.
CHAPTER - III
INFRASTRUCTURAL
FACILITIES
14.1. The
Committee could gather that in this era of technological boom, the
Investigating Officers in CBI who are at the cutting edge of investigation have
not been provided with mobile phones or laptops. The Committee recommends
that such gadgets should be made available to them to ensure smooth, timely and
proper execution of their delicate work which is usually on a 24X7 basis.
14.2.
The Committee recommends that CBI should
have a strong in-house Research and Development Wing. The Committee is not in favour of outsourcing any job entrusted
to Working of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), keeping in view the
confidential nature of the work done in the organization. It recommends that specialized departments
consisting of specialized professional personnel should be created in the
organization itself to deal with specialized sectors such as banking, airlines,
insurance, revenue, terror etc.
14.3.
As far as forensic support is concerned,
the Committee feels that there is an urgent need to provide forensic support
exclusively to the CBI. Moreover, the technical staff should be granted special
incentives because the Committee notes that they are engaged in highly
technical assignments which involve analyzing every minutest detail in a case
and arriving at logical conclusions.
14.3.1.
The Committee notes that at present, the CBI is dependent on Forensic labs
which are established and controlled by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Committee could gather that this results
in delay in procuring scientific verdict in the cases which are referred to
these labs by CBI, thereby resulting in piling up of cases. The Committee is of the opinion that quick
disposal of cases referred to the labs has to be ensured stringently and that
it is more so important because without scientific evidence to substantiate the
case put forward by the prosecution, conviction cannot be ensured. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends
that the CBI should be equipped with Forensic labs which are exclusively at the
disposal of CBI and which are manned by the CBI personnel, who are technically
trained for the same. This will ensure effective monitoring of the progress of
the forensic cases referred to it and
thereby, quick disposal of cases.
14.4.
The Committee recommends that concrete
steps should be taken to attract highly qualified technical staff to the
organisation, for whom there is no dearth of employment opportunities in the
private sector or abroad. Furthermore,
adequate training should be given to them so that they can hone their skills in
such a way that it aids in effective investigation and successful prosecution.
14.5. Construction of CBI Headquarters
14.5.1. The Committee, in its previous
Reports on Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions, had recommended that the Ministry should ensure that the
construction of the CBI Head Quarters Building takes place within the
stipulated period. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, while deposing before
the Committee, stated that the proposal for a new CBI Headquarters building has
been approved and that it would be a real State of the Art building.
14.5.2.
The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendation that the Ministry should
ensure that construction of CBI Head Quarters Building takes place within the
stipulated period.
14.6.
Cyber Crimes
14.6.1. The Committee is aware that cyber
attacks on our critical infrastructure and economy would have potentially
devastating results. The Committee takes note of the submissions made by CBI in
its written reply that the offences defined under the Information Technology
Act, 2000 should be investigated as per the jurisdiction defined in section 177
to 189 of Chapter 12 of CrPC. However,
since the jurisdiction of most of the offences under this Act would lie outside
the jurisdiction of Union Territory, CBI requires consent of the State
Governments under section 6 of DSPE Act and corresponding notification by
Central Government under section 5 of the Act to investigate offences. In absence of general consent by the
concerned State Governments, to obtain consent of the State Governments on case
to case basis is extremely slow process compared to the speed at which the
cyber crimes are committed and also given the volatility of the evidence.
14.6.2. It was also stated that though the
CBI has been mandated by the Ministry of Home Affairs to build national
capability in imparting training in cyber crime investigation and have also
been made authorized agency of Central Government to investigate computer
related crimes and to initiate investigation into all cases of hacking and
cyber crimes vide letter dated June 3, 2002 of the Cabinet Secretariat,
it has not been able to perform that role.
14.6.3.
The Committee is of the opinion that cyber crimes breach boundaries of States
and that it is very difficult, rather impossible to fix the jurisdiction of an
individual State to take cognizance of the matter. Moreover, the nature of cyber crimes is very complex and
technical and the State police personnel may not be fully equipped to deal with
them. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the existing law should be
amended to enable the Central Bureau of Investigation to undertake investigation
into cyber crimes without going for the lengthy process of obtaining the
sanction of Governments of the States in such cases.
14.6.4.
The Committee further recommends that the Cyber Crime Unit which is presently
functioning in CBI should be adequately supported by a well equipped technical
unit with adequate cyber investigation/forensic tools and related
infrastructure. Further, prevention of cyber crimes should also be
given top priority. In order to ensure
prevention of such intrusions, the Committee recommends that CBI should be
given the requisite legal mandate and should be equipped to monitor the cyber
traffic traversing through various gateways in the country.
14.7. International Crimes
14.7.1. The
Committee is of the opinion that in this era where international crimes are on
the rise and India is one of the countries where such incidents routinely
occur, it is but inevitable that the premier investigating agency in the
country is fine tuned to the exigencies of the modern world. As
corporate, financial and nationality definitions and structures become more
complex and global, the distinction between foreign and domestic entities will
increasingly blur.
14.7.2. The Committee feels that in
this era, in depth knowledge of international law, procedure and various
treaties is inevitable. In this background, the Committee is of the view that
CBI failed in obtaining successful conviction in many cases having
international ramifications because of non-expertise of CBI in such cases. In order to achieve this objective, the Committee recommends
that a separate wing i.e., “International Crimes Division” should be carved out
in CBI with well trained personnel which would cater to matters connected with
INTERPOL, extradition and international crimes.
14.7.3. The Committee further
recommends that separate wings should be created in CBI to deal with matters in
specialised sectors such as Banking, Insurance, Airlines, Revenue etc. Such wings should be comprised of competent
personnel who are professionals in their respective fields. They should be granted pay and emoluments
commensurate to their knowledge and expertise.
14.7.4. Anti Terrorism Division
14.7.4.1. The Committee feels that in the present
scenario when India faces the grave challenge of terrorism, proper attention
should be given to the prevention and management of terrorist
threats/attacks. This would also
involve ensuring conviction in such cases without delay. The Committee strongly feels that CBI is the
organization which is well equipped for such operations, investigation and
prosecution. Therefore, the Committee
recommends that a separate Anti terrorism Division should be created in CBI and
that highly advanced training and infrastructure/equipments should be provided
to them.
14.8. Modernization
14.8.1. The
Committee is of the view that modernisation of the agency is of the utmost
priority, in view of new dimensions of crime due to innovation of technology
and also high expectations of people and reliance on the proficiency of CBI by
the entire political and social spectrum.
14.8.2. The Committee recommends that
latest gadgets and equipments should be procured to ensure efficient and
effective functioning of the organisation.
It feels that fine tuning between man and machine would definitely
enhance the technical capability of the organisation.
14.8.3. The Committee recommends that
adequate facilities and amenities should be provided to the CBI personnel so
that they can put in their best in the discharge of the onerous
responsibilities. More funds should be allocated for modernization and
proper review of the work done in this regard should be taken up on a regular
basis. Stress should not only be limited to allocation; rather optimum
utilisation of the available funds needs to be ensured. Proposals for
modernisation should be worked out and if needed, experts in these fields
should be involved in framing such projects/proposals.
14.8.4. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions while tendering oral evidence before the Committee,
stated that CBI has engaged Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi as its
institutional consultant to advise it on several aspects of modernisation.
The Committee is happy to note that such proactive steps have been taken
in this regard and recommends that its findings should be thoroughly examined
and implemented in a time bound manner.
14.8.5. The Committee is of the opinion that if
we aspire to raise CBI to international standards, world class gadgetry should
also be provided to the personnel. The
Committee, therefore, recommends that the Investigating Officers in CBI should
be given latest equipments such as Blackberry type (Broadband) mobile phone
which are the latest for the time being, laptop with internet mobile
connectivity and pen-drive etc. so that they are equipped with sufficient
ammunition to improve their work performance and output.
14.8.6. It has been submitted by CBI, in its written reply,
that a consolidated Plan Document for modernization of CBI is awaited from the
CBI. Their proposal is likely to include:
(i) Purchase
of latest gadgetry like laptops, cellular phones, digital video cameras.
(ii) Purchase
of vehicles.
(iii) Construction
of 2nd phase of CBI Academy.
(iv) Replacement
of existing distributed database architecture with central database.
14.8.7. The Committee recommends that the
consolidated plan document for modernization of CBI, which is awaited, should
be prepared and implemented at the earliest. The Committee is of the opinion
that much more needs to be done regarding modernization in terms of
investigation, interrogation and training.
It recommends that advanced logistics and support facilities should be
made available to the personnel without delay.
The Committee recommends that steps should be taken to establish a
paperless environment and is of the opinion that utilizing automated work flow
systems would improve job efficiency.
CHAPTER - IV
FINANCIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPOWERMENT
15.1. The
Committee is of the opinion that lack of financial autonomy acts as a major
hindrance in the efficient working of the organisation. It notes that lack of
delegation of powers is one of the major bottlenecks in the CBI and that even
for the smallest of things, CBI has to get clearance from the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions.
15.2. The Committee recommends that keeping in view
the need for functional independence of the CBI, it is imperative that
financial powers are commensurate with the requirement of efficient and smooth
functioning of the organisation.
15.3. The
Committee, during examination of Demands for Grants for the year 2005-06 of the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions had recommended that an
Internal Financial Advisor for CBI may be appointed to render expert advice on
financial matters. The Committee could
gather that this proposal has been implemented. The Committee recommends that more financial powers should be vested with the Director, CBI so that
expenditure incurred on activities such as training, purchase of computers etc.
do not suffer, owing to lack of funds.
15.4. The Committee
strongly feels that the Director, CBI should be given the same status as that
of his counterparts heading similar international organisations such as
FBI. It is of the opinion that it is
but inevitable that the Director of the premier investigation agency in the
country should exercise powers and autonomy which are at par with those
exercised by his counterparts. The Director, CBI should be given appropriate
powers and discretion to take on the spot decisions regarding vital proposals
for improvement of infrastructure, methods of investigation, etc.
15.5. The Committee
notes that the sad state of affairs which is prevalent now is that cases are
being referred to CBI without granting adequate funds required to meet the
investigation and prosecution expenses.
The Committee is of the opinion that it is high time that concrete steps
are taken to ensure that in the Ministries/Departments of the Central
Government, annual projections/estimates should be calculated/made as to how
many cases are likely to arise which may be referred for investigation by
agencies such as CBI. Thereafter, in
accordance with the projections, adequate budgetary provisions should be made
and such amount should be made available to the investigation agency as and
when cases are referred to it. The
Committee recommends that a separate budgetary head should be provided for such
expenses.
15.6. The Committee is also of the view that the
expenses incurred by the investigation agency in the investigation and
prosecution of a case should be met by the concerned Department/Ministry. Such
a system will ensure that the investigation and prosecution will not suffer on
account of shortage of funds and that the targets are achieved within the
prescribed time-limit.
15.7. Internal
Vigilance machinery
15.7.1. The Committee observes that there have been many instances
wherein there has been misuse of power by the CBI personnel. It feels that such occurrences earn a bad
reputation for this premier organization. The Committee feels that independence
and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Therefore, it is of the opinion that while there is a need to
grant greater autonomy to CBI, proper care should be taken to ensure
accountability also. The Committee recommends that an effective and stringent
vigilance machinery should be envisaged and set up in CBI to ensure that such
incidents do not occur in future. It
further recommends that stringent punitive action should be taken against the
delinquent personnel.
15.7.2. The Supreme Court of India in Vineet Narain’s case had observed that the CBI Manual based on
statutory provisions of the Cr. P.C. provides essential guidelines for the
CBI’s functioning and that it is imperative that the CBI adheres scrupulously
to the provisions in the Manual in relation to its investigative functions like
raids, seizure and arrests. The Court
had also opined that any deviation from the established procedure should be
viewed seriously and severe disciplinary action taken against the concerned
officials.
15.7.3. The
Committee endorses the observation of the Hon’ble Court and recommends that
steps should be taken to ensure effective implementation of the same.
15.8. Transparency
15.8.1. The Committee is of the opinion that transparency ensures
accountability of an organisation/agency to the people. The Committee endorses the
observation made by the Supreme Court in Vineet
Narain’s case that a document on CBI’s functioning should be published to
provide the general public with a feedback on investigations and information
for redress of genuine grievances in a manner which does not compromise with
the operational requirements of the CBI.
The Committee feels that this would contribute to improved public
confidence in the organisation.
15.8.2.
The Committee recommends that the information displayed in the website of CBI
should be updated periodically in spirit with Section 4 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
15.8.3.
Some Members of the Committee raised concern over the publicity resorted to by
CBI at the initial stages of investigation of cases. They opined that such publicity tarnish the image of the accused
especially in case of political persons and innocent persons, ruining their public
image forever, though ultimately they may be acquitted. The Committee is of the
opinion that utmost care and caution should be exercised in such cases to avoid
media trial.
CHAPTER - V
DIRECTORATE
OF PROSECUTION
16.1. The Committee endorses the observation made by the Supreme Court in
Vineet Narain’s case that unless a
proper investigation is made and it is followed by an equally proper
prosecution, the effort made would not bear fruition. The need for a strong and
competent prosecution machinery and not merely a fair and competent
investigation by the CBI can hardly be over emphasized. Unless a competent
prosecution follows a fair and competent investigation, the exercise in the
ultimate analysis would be futile and investigation without improving the
prosecution machinery is of no practical significance.
16.2. The
CBI, in its written reply, has stated that as the present system having
separate prosecution wing i.e. the Directorate of Prosecution has not yielded
the desired results but on the other hand has resulted in dilution of
prosecution efforts, CBI would urge adoption of recommendation made by
Committee on Reforms on Criminal Justice headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath
wherein it was proposed that the police officer of the rank of Director General
of Police/IGP may be designated as Director of Prosecution. It was also stated that this would
facilitate an effective co-ordination between the investigation and prosecution
officers and that in order to ensure accountability of both the wings of
criminal justice system, Director may be vested with the power to call for the
reports from prosecutors as well as from Superintendent of Police and take
action in case of defaults/lapses.
16.3.
The Committee is of the view that
efficient prosecution is sine qua non for proper administration of justice and
that there is requirement of seamless co-ordination between the prosecution and
investigation wings. The Committee feels that the Head of the
Directorate of Prosecution should invariably be a lawyer who is well versed in
the various nuances of substantive and procedural law and who has practical
knowledge of arguing cases in a Court of law.
16.4.
The Committee is of the opinion that the
decision maker in regard to the issue as to whether a case is fit for
prosecution or not should be the Director of Prosecution and not an executive
person. It is of the view that this
would ensure successful prosecution thereby, resulting in better conviction
rate. The Committee feels that the
Director of Prosecution should be well conversant with each and every step of
the conduct of the trial and should be accountable for the same. Thus,
alongwith ensuring his independence and autonomy, greater accountability is
expected from him. The Committee observers that autonomy of the Directorate of
Prosecution will guarantee independence of the prosecution, thereby clearing
out many bottlenecks existing in the present system which result in acquittal
in many cases.
16.4.1. The
Committee strongly feels that the decision as to whether prosecution should be
initiated against the accused on the basis of evidence gathered during the
investigation and whether the case under consideration is sustainable in Court
should be left solely to the Directorate of Prosecution. The Committee is of the view that the
Prosecutors are the best judge in this regard and any interference in this
process should be avoided to the extent possible.
16.5. The
Committee recommends that the observation of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain’s case that a panel of competent lawyers of experience and
impeccable reputation shall be prepared with the advice of the Attorney General
and that their services shall be utilised as Prosecuting Counsels in cases of
significance and that even during the course of investigation of an offence,
the advice of a lawyer chosen from the panel should be taken by the
CBI/Enforcement Directorate, should be examined by the Government and
appropriate action should be taken in this regard.
16.6. Establishment
of exclusive Special Courts
16.6.1.
The Committee takes note of the submission made by CBI that there is procedural
delay in appointment of judges for CBI Courts. The Committee strongly feels
that such delays fatally affect the effective administration of justice. The Committee
recommends that timely appointment of Judges should be made in exclusive CBI
Courts and that a time bound strategic plan should be envisaged and implemented
to minimize pendency of cases.
16.6.2.
Taking into account the number of cases pending disposal, the Committee also
feels that there is an urgent need to significantly increase the number of
exclusive courts for conducting trial of CBI cases, or else the number of
pending cases would accumulate.
(YEAR WISE)
|
Years |
No. of cases |
Below
5 years
|
4146 |
|
5 to 10 years |
2116 |
|
10 to 15 years |
1205 |
|
15 to 20 years |
582 |
|
Above 20 years |
244 |
TOTAL
|
8293 |
16.6.3.
The Committee takes serious view of the submission made by CBI that in 438
cases, charges have not been framed even after 10 years. The Committee
recommends that targets should be fixed on a time to time basis, and that whole
hearted efforts should be made to meet the targets. The Committee is of the
considered opinion that the maximum time limit for disposal of a case should
not be more than one year in ordinary circumstances.
16.7. Delay in prosecution sanction
16.7.1. The Committee was informed that delay in prosecution sanction
was one of the major reasons for delay in conclusion of a case. In the event of
refusal of sanction, it results in wastage of time, money and resources,
expended during investigation.
16.7.2. The Committee is also of the opinion that the provision for
prosecution sanction is one of the bottlenecks in providing autonomy to
CBI. It is of the view that the need
for prosecution sanction weakens the process of prosecution and notes that
there have been many instances wherein prosecution sanction was denied and
Courts stepped in to give a go ahead for the prosecution. The Committee feels
that such instances bring CBI to disrepute and is of the opinion that concrete
steps should be taken to prevent such embarrassments. It is of the opinion that if the procedure for initiating
prosecution is foolproof, the need for judiciary stepping in will not arise in
the first place and recommends that wholehearted efforts should be made in this
direction.
16.7.3. In its
written reply, the CBI has stated that each case is required to be examined
separately by the respective Ministry/Department for decision on merits. The
reasons for the delay in obtaining prosecution sanction is generally attributed
to incomplete report of Superintendent of Police, which may not be adequately
supported by convincing documentary evidences. It was also stated that
sometimes there are delays in taking decision by the concerned competent
authority who may choose to enter into correspondence with other authorities
including the CVC and by considering representations of the accused officer.
16.7.4. Furthermore, the Committee was apprised that
the Central Vigilance Commission had issued guidelines for checking delay in
accord of sanction for prosecution on 12th May, 2005. In order to
check delay in grant of sanction for prosecution, the Department of Personnel
had also issued detailed guidelines on 6th November, 2006
prescribing time limit at each stage and also fixing responsibilities on
deliberate delays. The Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department is
required to furnish written explanation to the Cabinet Secretary in all cases
of delay beyond the stipulated time of three months. Delayed cases are also
required to be placed before a Committee chaired by Secretary (Personnel) and
comprising the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/Department, Law
Secretary and Director, CBI for scrutiny and recommendation.
16.7.5. It is pertinent to note that in Vineet Narain’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed
thus:
“There is no similarity between a mere executive order requiring prior
permission sanction for investigation of the offence and sanction needed under
the statute for prosecution. The
requirement of sanction for prosecution being provided in the very statue which
enacts the offence, the sanction for prosecution is a pre-requisite for the
court to take cognizance of the offence.
In the absence of any statutory requirement of prior permission or
sanction for investigation, it cannot be imposed as a condition precedent for
institution of the investigation once jurisdiction is conferred on the CBI to
investigate the offence by virtue of the notification under section 3 of the
Act. The word “superintendence” in
section 4 (1) of the Act in the context must be construed in a manner
consistent with the other provisions of the Act and the general statutory
powers of investigation by the CBI. The
necessity of previous sanction for prosecution is provided in Section 6 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Section 19 of the 1988 Act) without which
no court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 5 of that
Act. There is no such previous sanction
for investigation provided for either in the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act or in any other statutory
provision. The above is the only manner
in which Section 4 (1) of the Act can be harmonized with Section 3 and the
other statutory provisions.”
16.7.6. The Committee feels that once the investigating agency comes to
the conclusion that prosecution is necessary and Director of Prosecution also
concurs, there should not be any delay for any reason other than the merits of
prosecution itself. The Committee accordingly desires that the Ministry should
make all concerted efforts to ensure that the concerned Departments, Ministries
of the Central Government or State Government accord necessary sanction for
prosecution within a period of 15 days.
The Committee is of the considered opinion that if the sanction is not
granted within a period of 15 days, it should be “deemed sanction” and the CBI
should file the chargesheet in the Court and proceed further according to the
law of the land.
16.8.1. The Committee observes that the
decline in conviction rate of CBI is due to many factors such as investigating
faults, witnesses turning hostile and prolonged trial. It notes that the conviction rate of CBI has
improved from 65.6% in 2005 to 72.9% in 2006.
16.8.2.
The Committee is pleased to note the positive output , but is of the opinion
that efforts should be made to improve the infrastructure, incentives and
facilities available to the investigation officers and prosecutors which would
improve the functioning of CBI and result in higher rate of conviction.
CHAPTER - VI
NEED
FOR SEPARATE ENACTMENT FOR CBI
16.9.1. The Committee notes that the jurisdiction of
CBI is confined only to Union Territories for investigation of offences
notified under Section 3 of DSPE Act, 1946 and that it requires consent of the
concerned State Government under Section 6 and a corresponding notification
from the Central Government under Section 5, before taking up investigation of
a case outside the Union Territories.
16.9.2. The Committee also takes note of the fact that
under the existing DSPE Act, procedural nuances involved in obtaining the
consent of the State Government for investigation of cases within its
jurisdiction cause inordinate delays.
16.9.3.
The Committee feels that Section 6 of the DSPE Act clips the wings of CBI and
due to this legal hurdle, CBI cannot be the first responders in case of crimes
which even threaten the security of the nation such as a terrorist attack. By the time the CBI is handed over the case,
precious time is lost which not only results in loss of crucial evidence, but
also provides ample time for criminals to escape who operate at electronic
speed or move the ill-gotten wealth in safe havens across the globe. Moreover, the CBI does not get an
opportunity to build required data base and collate intelligence absolutely
essential for successfully investigating such type of cases, more so in the
present era wherein the dangerous convergence of terrorism and traditional
crimes presents obvious and acute dangers.
16.9.4.
The Committee strongly opines that CBI should evolve into an organisation which
maintains a robust incident response capability and having ability to adjust to
emerging and evolving circumstances created by new threats. In order to ensure this, it should be
supported by an infallible legal fabric.
The Committee feels that it is high time crime scene management is given
topmost priority and that in cases of terrorist attack and such other serious
cases wherein the whole nation is affected, CBI should be given the power to
investigate the cases without any hurdles.
The Committee is of the view that CBI has acquired sufficient expertise
in investigation of cases having inter-State and international ramifications
and organized crimes and that what is needed urgently in public interest is
adequate statutory support to CBI.
16.9.5. The Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs while tendering oral evidence before the Committee, stated that the
issue of setting up a Central agency to deal with cases having inter-State or
international ramifications was discussed in the Chief Ministers’ Conference
since the year 2000. He apprised the
Committee that most of the States were of the view that this would be an
infringement on the jurisdiction of the States under the constitutional scheme
and that some of the States highlighted the need for greater co-ordination
between the Central and State agencies.
He also stated that some States such as Punjab, Orissa and Himachal
Pradesh agreed to the proposal.
16.9.6. At this juncture, it is pertinent
to note that there are agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and
Narcotics Control Board which are Central agencies, but are endowed with the
powers of investigation of cases. The Committee is of the view that CBI can
also be granted powers of investigation and prosecution in the same manner.
16.9.7. Meanwhile, the Secretary also
stated that an opinion was raised that
there can be some kind of a concurrent jurisdiction between the States and the
Centre and that there would have to be some mechanism whereby in a concurrent
jurisdiction situation, the Central agency could be given certain cases for
investigation where prima facie inter-State, inter-institution, international
linkages are present and that there
should be some mechanism whereby this Central agency with some degree of
automaticity is able to take up that kind of investigation.
16.9.8. The Committee was informed by the
Secretary that it is being suggested that an Empowered Committee, comprising of the Union Home Secretary, Law
Secretary, the Director General of Police or the Home Secretary of the
concerned State and the Solicitor General, could be constituted and that in event
of any terrorist attack or such instances which threaten national security,
this Committee would get activated. This Committee would then analyse the
dimensions of the situation and make a recommendation, which after approval by
the competent authority defined in the statute itself, will lead to a decision
as to whether the case should be taken over by the CBI or some other agency.
16.9.9. The Secretary further stated as
follows:-
………… Also the
view that has been expressed in various deliberations on the subject is that
this should not be purely only an investigative agency. The view that has been expressed in all
these deliberations is that, in fact, it should be seen as an enforcement
agency. Enforcement agency means, an
element of preventive intelligence, an element of intelligence back-up to
investigation and all those kinds of things……..
16.9.10.1. The Committee sought the views
of the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice on the
feasibility of granting powers to the CBI to take cognizance of crimes having
inter-State, inter-organisation and international dimensions. The opinion given
by them was that the Parliament could, in light of provisions of Article 253
and Entry 14 of the List I of the Constitution, enact a legislation which could
contain list of offences created under various statutes to give effect to
international Treaties, Convention or Agreements and that a separate
Investigating Agency could be established which would have a specific body with
special experts to deal with such offences.
It was also emphasized that in case the proposal to create a Central
Investigating Agency was carried through, the said Agency for the purpose of
investigation and prosecution of the Specified Offences would have a concurrent
power along with State Police and would not have the effect of ousting
jurisdiction of the State Government to deal with such offences.
16.9.10.2. The Committee also sought the
opinion of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance on the matter of
granting powers to CBI to take up offences under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Their view
was that the powers to investigate and prosecute for offences under the PMLA
were conferred on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) since the work-load of ED in
regard to investigation and adjudication of cases under Foreign Exchange
Management Act was expected to decline and the available skilled manpower and
infrastructure of ED, with some additional inputs, could be gainfully utilized
for investigation of cases under PMLA. They also stated that there are many
similarities between the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the
PMLA in respect of investigation into matters under these two Acts, and that
considerable expertise had been gained by ED in areas of such
investigation.
16.9.11. The Committee takes note of the view of the
Police Act Drafting Committee (Soli Sorabjee Committee) that with the blurring
of the line of distinction now between external aggression and the internal
disturbances engineered by terrorist etc. groups – often instigated, abetted,
aided, assisted and supported by inimical foreign forces – and the organized
criminal groups supporting them, with arms, ammunition, and funding through
hawala transactions etc, any measures taken to combat their activities can be
regarded as measures taken for defence of India, in terms of Entry number 1 of
the Union List.
16.9.12. The Soli Sorabjee Committee was of the view
that a country like India, wedded to democracy and rule of law, has to fight
such acts of war mainly through the means of criminal justice process and due
process of law and not just by militaristic means. Thus, it is imperative to set up a strong, efficient and
effective criminal justice mechanism to deal with such grave threat to the
country’s integrity, stability and sovereignty. The acts which are aimed at – and clearly have the potential of –
causing detriment to the country’s integrity, stability and sovereignty or
destabilizing the economy of India, are to be deemed as threats to national
security and defence of India. Such
perilous activities can not obviously be left to be routinely dealt with as
ordinary crime or law and order problems, by the concerned State police forces. In this regard, the Committee also noted
several handicaps which the State police forces have to face in dealing with
crimes of serious and inter-State/international dimensions.
16.9.12.1. The Committee also takes note
of the observations made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding
granting powers of investigation of federal crimes to a Central Agency. It was observed by the Commission,
inter-alia, that it has been seen that the local law enforcement agencies more
often than not, look at the crimes from their narrow prospective to understand
the crime in its totality and that even if the larger ramifications are
understood, the States are usually reluctant to share the intelligence or the
information with the neighbouring States or even the Centre. The Commission had also observed that the
individual States, due to their limited resources, would find it difficult to
provide specialized investigators and experts in sufficient numbers to
investigate crimes which necessitate specialization of a high order.
16.9.13. As submitted by CBI, the last two
decades have witnessed communication revolution which coupled with better
transportation facilities, has reduced the world to a global village. This has not only made the movement of the
criminals across national boundaries much easier but also enabled movement of
ill-gotten funds almost seamless. This
has been posing new challenges to police forces across the globe, who are
looking for better coordination and faster exchange of information among
themselves, to address these. As national
boundaries evaporate, no nation can remain untouched by the onslaught of
criminals operating from different parts of the globe and so we are in
India.
16.9.14. This even attracted the attention
of Hon’ble Supreme Court which in its order dated September 22, 2006 passed in
Writ Petition No.310 of 1996 (Prakash Singh and Others vs. Union of India and
others) observed that the suggestion made by the petitioners that the
investigation of cases arising out of threat emanating from international
terrorism or organised crimes like drug trafficking, money laundering,
smuggling of weapons from across the borders, counterfeit currency or the
activities of major groups with transnational links which have inter state and
international ramifications deserves to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation needs consideration. The
role of CBI has thus expanded considerably on account of cases being entrusted
by the State Governments and faith reposed in it by the Constitutional Courts
in entrusting investigation of important cases often with inter-state and
international ramifications. In the
recent past, number of cases of terrorism, organised crimes, human trafficking
etc. have been entrusted to the CBI.
16.9.14.1. The Committee further notes the
observation made by the Report of the Committee on Draft National Policy on
Criminal Justice under the Chairmanship of Dr. Madhava Menon that India could
not afford to leave it to individual States within the Union to tackle the
menace of terrorism and certain types of organized crimes and that some sort of
joint mechanism- centrally activated and controlled-seemed to be an absolute
necessity. The Committee had further
observed that the constitutional division of powers, however interpreted, could
not come in the way when the nation’s security is in peril.
16.9.15.
The Committee is of the opinion that regardless of his location in any State in
India, every Indian citizen, whether he is a native of that State or not, has,
by virtue of his citizenship, a right to protection by the Government of India
of his life, liberty and property, and that the Government of India has a
corresponding obligation. Hence, the Committee feels that vesting CBI with
appropriate statutory backing to take suo-motu cognizance of crimes would in no way affect the essentials of our
federal structure. This would not only
enable the CBI to deal with such investigation with due promptitude but also
play a pro active role in collection of intelligence, creating institutional
memory and capacity building. It is
felt that a proactive and holistic approach is required to deal with threats
thrown up by the linkages between organised crimes and terrorists to the
national security and localized and piecemeal battles against such crimes
cannot be success.
16.9.16. The
Committee is of the opinion that in the present era, incidents such as
terrorist attacks which occur in States have an impact on the entire country
and that traditional methods of intelligence, investigation and prosecution are
structurally and functionally inadequate to effectively counter transnational
offences like terrorism, organized crime and high tech crime. The role of the
Ministry of Home Affairs is confined to passing on the intelligence inputs
which they painstakingly gather to the concerned State Government. It is then
left to the State Government to take adequate precautionary/preventive
measures. But when such incidents occur
due to lack of exercise of proper vigilance by the State, the responsibility is
cast upon the Central Government for the occurrence of the same. The only
option left with the Central Government at present is to extend all possible
support to the concerned State Government for the post crime investigation.
16.9.16.1.
The Committee is of the view that the internal threats posed by divisive forces
are equally important as external aggressions and that technology has
facilitated the exponential escalation of the danger and threat levels posed by
organized crimes and terrorism.
Therefore, they should be dealt with very stringently and while doing
so, prevention of incidents which threaten the security of our nation should be
given prime thrust and priority. In this regard, the Committee strongly feels
that the Central Government should be given adequate powers to take prompt and
effective action on the intelligence available to them. The Committee is of the opinion that in
order to ensure proper management and prevention of such incidents which
threaten the security of the nation, the CBI should be envisaged as an
enforcement agency also which would mean that apart from investigation and
prosecution, CBI should be given mandate to ensure prevention of crimes. The
Committee recommends that a separate Anti-Terrorism Division should be created
in the CBI.
16.9.17. Some Members of the Committee
raised an apprehension that since nowadays politics has crept into criminal
investigation, adequate safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the
Central Government do not resort to arbitrary exercise of power, compromising
the autonomy of the States. Taking this into account, the Committee is of the
considered opinion that while guaranteeing statutory autonomy to CBI, its
accountability has also to be ensured.
16.9.18. The Committee, in its earlier Reports
on the Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, had recommended that the possibility of getting enacted a separate
Act for CBI in tune with the requirement of the time, rather than deriving its
powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, may be examined
by the Government. The Committee regrets
to note that no proactive steps have so far been taken in this regard inspite
of strong recommendations made by this Committee. The Committee strongly opines
that unless CBI is suitably empowered statutorily it cannot investigate cases
and take it to logical conclusion.
16.9.19. During the
deliberations of the Committee, the Committee took note of the following
Entries in the Union List, State List and Concurrent List of the Constitution
of India:-
Union List
8. Central Bureau of
Intelligence and Investigation.
9. Preventive detention for
reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs, or the security of India;
persons subjected to such detention.
93. Offences against laws
with respect to any of the matters in this List.
State List
1. Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military
or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force
subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid
of the civil power).
Concurrent List
1. Criminal law, including all matters included in the Indian
Penal Code at the commencement of this Constitution but excluding offences
against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II
and excluding the use of naval, military or air forces or any other armed
forces or the Union in aid of the civil power.
2. Criminal procedure, including all matters included in the Code
of Criminal Procedure at the commencement of this Constitution.
3. Preventive detention for reasons connected with the security
of a State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the community; persons subjected to such detention.
4. Removal from one State to another State of prisoners, accused
persons and persons subjected to preventive detention for reasons specified in
entry 3 of this List.
16.9.20. The unanimous view
which emerged during discussions of the Committee was that the CBI was initially
granted powers under the DSPE Act, 1946. But, after the commencement of the
Constitution in 1950, CBI is included as Entry 8 in the Union List. Moreover, in view of Entries 1, 9 and 93 of
the Union List; Entry 1 of the State
List and Entries 1, 2,3 and 4 of the Concurrent list, the Committee is of the
considered opinion that the Constitution grants express powers to the Central
Government to make and implement law, giving powers to the CBI to take
cognizance of crimes. The Committee is of the view that the founding fathers of
the Constitution had contemplated a well defined scheme, according to which
Union Government/ CBI is not, in any way, debarred constitutionally from taking
suo-motu cognizance of offences.
16.9.21. The
Committee is of the opinion that though the Constitution granted a unique
status to CBI, the powers given to CBI under the DSPE Act were not upgraded or
amended after the commencement of the Constitution in tune with the
corresponding Entries in the Union List, State List and Concurrent List. The
Committee is of the opinion that not granting ample powers to CBI amounts to
degrading the status of the investigation agency which was enlisted in the
Union List by the framers of our Constitution as “Central Bureau of
Intelligence and Investigation”. The
Committee is of the view that CBI is the only agency in India which has
acquired and accumulated the necessary expertise in successfully investigating
wide hues of transnational, terrorist and organised crimes and that enacting an
enabling legislation for CBI will be a major step towards evolving CBI into an
independent and accountable agency which specializes in investigation and
prosecution.
16.9.22. The
Committee notes that in the United States of America (USA), the federal States have
their own Constitution and yet they have subjected themselves to the
jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which is a Central
agency. It understands that police and
public order is a State subject in the USA too and that in all cases involving
a federal offence in the USA, the FBI and the local police have concurrent
jurisdiction; but the moment the FBI steps in, the local police stops
investigation. In India, the situation
is different in that its polity is quasi-federal in nature. Therefore, the
Committee sees no reason to prevent granting of powers to CBI under a suitable
comprehensive legislation. Taking into account these aspects, the Committee
finds no coherent reason to debar the apposite legal empowerment of CBI.
16.9.23. The
Committee also deliberated upon the nitty gritty of such a legislation and was
of the view that the Constitution grants CBI the necessary mandate and empowers
the Central Government to enact a statute to this effect. It recommends that
this Report may be formulated as the source for “Central Bureau of Intelligence
and Investigation Bill” and that the DSPE Act should be amended to take CBI out
of its purview or it may even be repealed. The Committee is of the opinion that
there is a Constitutional direction and mandate that the State police agencies
and the CBI are having concurrent jurisdiction. However, when the CBI takes up any case for investigation, or
when the Empowered Committee mentioned in para 16.9.8. refers a case to the
CBI, the case would become the responsibility of that agency, which may obtain
support, as necessary, from the concerned State agencies and it would be
obligatory for the latter to extend the same when required. The State police agencies, on their part,
may also like to refer complex cases to the CBI and the CBI should be seen by
the States, in public interest, as supportive and complementary, and not as
intrusive.
16.9.24. The
Committee feels that much manpower and finances have been expended till date to
conduct studies/debates regarding the feasibility of a Central law Enforcement
Agency or granting powers to CBI. But
the Committee is disturbed to note that nothing fruitful has come out so
far. It feels that it is high time
concrete action is taken in this direction, rather than engaging in further
debates/discussions. The Committee is
of the considered view that the moot point is not whether CBI should be granted
powers under a comprehensive statute; but rather, when it is going to be
materialized. The Committee is of the opinion
that since the various provisions of the Constitution mandates concurring
powers to CBI, it is in public interest that, in this era of successive waves
of terrorist attacks and highly technical crimes, a statute is enacted, without
much ado, granting to the CBI, powers which are enshrined in the Constitution,
so that such crimes are tackled in a
more consistent and effective manner.
16.9.25. The
Committee is of the view that such an Act of Parliament will empower Union
Government to address the present environment of violence and crimes which
threaten the very fabric of Indian democracy, with more powers and
accountability. This will rectify the present situation wherein the Union
Government is handicapped, in the name of federalism, from making use of the
intelligence they gather, thereby failing to prevent the occurrence of crimes
and punishing the criminals, while the framers of the Constitution had
unambiguously visualized the present need and provided the Concurrent powers as
per Entries 1 to 4 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.
----------------