Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ece
All that has been said against the CBI is not the result purely of interference by the
government and the political parties supporting it. The lack of professionalism and
integrity flows from poor leadership as well. While a majority of the senior officers have
been free from blame, it is one or two bad hats that have brought disrepute to the
organisation, from which the judiciary and the common man expect the highest standards
of neutrality and honesty. What is relevant here is the capacity of the Director to stand up
to pressure from external sources to direct the investigation on desired lines.
Evidence in the files
In the current controversy, Mr. Jaitley charges that the CBI had been forced to tinker with
facts so as to indict Mahajan, Mr. Ghosh and others. This is a very serious charge that has
to be substantiated on the basis of documentary evidence. The CBI has a reasonably
foolproof file system in every case. This should contain the periodical progress reports
drafted by the Investigating Officer (IO) and comments thereon by those in the hierarchy,
that normally ends with the Director in sensational cases like the 2G scam. A study of the
file would unearth any intentional and unjustified deflection of the investigation. A coverup is very difficult in such cases. If the officers lower in the hierarchy had found no
evidence against Mr. Ghosh and others, and if any senior officer had overturned such
findings, there should have been clear notings to justify the dissent and the action to file
the charge sheet that has now been demolished and quashed by the judge. The public
expect high transparency in the process of finding the truth. I am sure the government
will not disappoint them.
A serious charge has been publicly made against Mr. Sibal. I am sure he would like to
clear himself of this embarrassment. Assuming that he did interfere and he forced the
CBI to do what has been alleged, how does one establish his impropriety? No person in
his position would ever confess to it. This is why I have always advised my officers that it
is ideal to put down all facts on paper, which would speak for themselves in the future.
Normally any ministerial interference, contrary to law, is oral, and immensely difficult to
prove. The CBI Chief at the relevant time cannot now turn round and say in his defence
that he had been bullied into filing the charge sheet that has now been nullified. If a civil
servant succumbs to illegal oral instructions and gets caught, he has only himself to
blame. No Minister, who had instructed him to do what is not sustainable in law, will now
come to his rescue. This is age-old wisdom that can be ignored by an official only at his
peril. Will future CBI leaders learn the lesson? I am not very sure, because the process of
appointing the CBI Chief and his immediate leadership has still many holes that are
exploited by career-minded officers to promote their interests.
(R. K. Raghavan is a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.)