Challenges and Functions of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in India

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) serves as India’s primary investigative agency, focusing on corruption, economic offenses, and serious crimes. Its functions extend to coordinating with various anti-corruption agencies and maintaining crime statistics. However, the CBI often faces challenges, particularly in navigating the political landscape and obtaining necessary permissions from state governments. This complex interplay affects its effectiveness in conducting investigations and ensuring accountability.

Comprehensive Overview of the Functions and Challenges Facing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in India

Functions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

• Investigation of Corruption Cases: CBI investigates cases of corruption, bribery, and misconduct involving Central government employees.

• Enforcement of Fiscal and Economic Laws: CBI handles cases related to violations of fiscal and economic laws, such as export-import controls, customs and central excise regulations, income tax matters, and foreign exchange regulations. 

• • • These cases are typically initiated in consultation with or at the request of the relevant government department.

• Investigation of Serious National and International Crimes: CBI investigates serious crimes with national and international implications, which are committed by organized groups of professional criminals.

• Coordination of Anti-Corruption Agencies: CBI plays a pivotal role in coordinating the activities of anti-corruption agencies and various state police forces in the country.

• Investigation of Cases of Public Importance: The agency undertakes investigations into cases of public importance at the request of state governments.

• Maintenance of Crime Statistics and Information Sharing: CBI maintains comprehensive crime statistics and shares criminal information as part of its functions.

• Multi-Disciplinary Investigation Agency: The CBI is a multidisciplinary investigative agency under the Government of India’s purview.

• Investigating Corruption and Economic Offenses: It is responsible for investigating corruption-related cases, economic offenses, and conventional crimes.

• • • Focus on Central Government Employees: The primary focus of the CBI’s anti-corruption efforts is on offenses committed by employees of the Central Government, Union Territories, and their public sector undertakings.
    • Conduct of Conventional Crime Investigations: Investigations into conventional crimes like murder, kidnapping, rape, etc., are conducted upon references from state governments or under the direction of the Supreme Court or High Courts.

• Role as the National Central Bureau of INTERPOL:

• • The CBI functions as the “National Central Bureau” of INTERPOL in India.
  • The INTERPOL Wing of the CBI manages and coordinates requests for investigative activities originating from Indian law enforcement agencies and member countries of Interpol.

Requirements for Prior Approval in CBI Investigations

• Central Government Approval: The CBI is obligated to seek prior approval from the Central Government before initiating an inquiry or investigation into offenses committed by officers holding the rank of joint secretary and above in the Central Government and its associated authorities.

• Supreme Court’s Verdict on Mandatory Prior Sanction:

• Supreme Court’s Ruling (2014): In 2014, the Supreme Court passed a judgment declaring a legal provision, which mandated prior sanction for the CBI to conduct investigations against senior bureaucrats in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as invalid.

• Reason for Ruling: A Constitution Bench held that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which provided protection to officers holding the rank of joint secretary and higher, preventing them from facing even a preliminary inquiry by the CBI in corruption cases, violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

• Equal Treatment in Anti-Corruption Efforts: The Chief Justice of India (CJI), in the judgment, emphasized that corruption poses a threat to the nation, and tracking and punishing corrupt public servants, regardless of their rank, is a vital mandate under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

• Uniform Treatment for Corrupt Officials: The CJI stressed that the status or position of a public servant should not exempt them from equal treatment under the law. 

• • The decision-making authority should not categorize corrupt officers into distinct classes, as they are all offenders of common crimes and should be subject to the same investigative processes.

Role of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE)

• • Role of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE): The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE), a division of the CBI, complements the efforts of state police forces in investigations.
  • Concurrent Powers for Investigation and Prosecution: It shares concurrent powers for investigation and prosecution under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

• Administrative Arrangements to Prevent Duplication: To avoid duplication and overlapping of cases, the following administrative arrangements are in place:

• Jurisdiction of DSPE: DSPE is responsible for cases primarily related to the affairs or employees of the Central Government, even if they involve certain state government employees.

• Jurisdiction of State Police Forces: State police forces handle cases primarily related to the affairs or employees of the state government, even if they also involve certain Central Government employees.

• • DSPE and Public Undertakings: DSPE is authorized to investigate cases involving employees of public undertakings or statutory bodies established and financed by the Central Government.

Issue of General Consent on CBI

“General Consent” refers to the permission granted by a state government to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to exercise its powers and jurisdiction within the state. Without this consent, the CBI cannot conduct investigations in the state.

• State Governments’ Authority: State governments have the authority to grant or withdraw General Consent for CBI investigations within their respective states.
• Withdrawal of Consent: State governments have the discretion to withdraw General Consent at any time, which means that the CBI’s jurisdiction for investigations in that state becomes limited.
• Consent Requirement: Without General Consent, the CBI can only conduct investigations in the state if the case is referred to it by either the state government or the judiciary.
• Political Disputes: The issue of General Consent has sometimes become a subject of political disputes between state governments and the central government.
• Effect on Investigations: The withdrawal of General Consent can impact ongoing CBI investigations within the state, potentially leading to delays and disruptions.
• Varied Stances: Different states may have varying stances on granting General Consent, and these stances can change with shifts in political leadership or government priorities.
• Legal Framework: The legal framework and regulations governing General Consent for CBI investigations may vary from state to state.

Some examples of CBI tussle with State govt. 

• Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case (Tamil Nadu, 1991): The investigation into the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in Tamil Nadu led to a conflict between the CBI and the Tamil Nadu state government. 
  • The state government wanted to handle the case independently, but the CBI argued that it had jurisdiction since it involved a former Prime Minister. 
  • Eventually, the case was transferred to the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which included CBI officers. 
• Sohrabuddin Sheikh Encounter Case (Gujarat, 2005): The CBI investigated the encounter killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife, and a witness in Gujarat. 
  • The case involved several high-ranking police officers. 
  • There was political controversy and resistance from the state government, which argued that the encounters were carried out in self-defense.
• Saradha Chit Fund Scam (West Bengal, 2013): The CBI faced resistance from the West Bengal government in its investigation into the Saradha chit fund scam. 
  • The state government accused the CBI of overstepping its authority, and there were conflicts over the questioning of senior state officials and leaders.
• Vyapam Scam (Madhya Pradesh, 2013): The Vyapam scam involved irregularities in admissions and recruitment exams conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board. 
  • The CBI took over the investigation, leading to tensions with the state government, which was accused of attempting to shield officials and politicians involved in the scam.
• Unnao Rape Case (Uttar Pradesh, 2017): The CBI took over the investigation of the Unnao rape case in Uttar Pradesh, involving a state legislator. 
  • There was significant political interference and resistance from the state government, which was accused of protecting the accused legislator. 
  • This case highlighted the challenges of investigating crimes involving influential politicians.

Conclusion

The CBI plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and combating corruption in India. Despite its significant responsibilities, the agency encounters numerous hurdles, especially related to state government consent and political interference. 

• Addressing these challenges is crucial for enhancing the CBI’s effectiveness and restoring public trust in its operations. 
• Continued reforms and support from the central government can strengthen its capacity to investigate and prosecute offenders effectively.

DOWNLOAD PDF