SC raps CBI officers, asks them to leave court and 'do their duty' in office

TNN | Nov 20, 2014, 12.45 PM IST

55

comments

0
inShare

READ MORE Supreme Court|SC raps CBI officers|CBI|2G scam

The court did not take well to the presence of a large number of CBI officers in the courtroom and inquired about the reason for their attendance.

RELATED

• Aircel-Maxis case: CBI can charge Maran, Supreme Court says
• Supreme Court wants name of whistleblower who revealed CBI director’s...
• CBI chief Ranjit Sinha met 2G scam accused: Petitioner
• 2G scam probe: SC tells Prashant Bhushan to submit entry register det...
• 2G scam investigator contradicts CBI director on placing facts before...

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has taken exception to the Central Bureau of Investigation's submission that senior counsel KK Venugopal will no longer represent it in the 2G spectrum case, as also the large attendance of its officers in the courtroom.

The court did not take kindly to the probe agency's joint director Ashok Tiwari telling counsel Gopal Shankar Narayan that Venugopal won't appear for CBI in the ongoing case on allegations that its chief Ranjit Sinha was interfering in the probe.

Chief Justice HL Dattu expressed this after Venugopal informed the court that he has been advised by the CBI on Thursday not to represent the agency in this case. The senior counsel said he was informed about this by Narayan, who is assisting him on the 2G case.

As Tiwari sought to clear the position that Venugopal represents CBI in the 2G cases and would continue to do so, the court asked why he (Tiwari) was present in the court and if he was mouthpiece of Sinha.

The court also did not take well to the presence of a large number of CBI officers in the courtroom, and inquired about the reason for their attendance.

When senior counsel Vikas Singh, representing Sinha, sought to justify this, saying they were assisting the court in giving clarifications on files, if any, Chief Justice Dattu said: "We have not called them. If we need any clarification, we will call them."

The Chief Justice then directed all the officers to leave the court and "do their duty" in office. 

 

 

Recent Messages (55)

Characters Remaining: 3000

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Sort By:

Sid Harth • 1 min ago

Convictions The CBI has a high conviction rate: Year Conviction rate 2011 67%[1] 2010 70.8%[46] 2009 Not available 2008 66.2%[47] 2007 67.7%[48]

Sid Harth • 2 mins ago

Constitutional status The constitutional status of CBI is always in doubt as it is not supported by any legal framework for its existence and operation.[40] Many have suggested legal frameworks for CBI (Pdf)[41] from time to time but till now we have no dedicated law for CBI in India. Gauhati high court had given a verdict on November 6, 2013, that CBI is unconstitutional and does not hold a legal status.[42][43] However, the Supreme Court of India stayed this verdict when challenged by the central government and next hearing on this is fixed on December 6, 2013.[44] Some legal experts believe that the ultimate solution for Indian government is to formulate a law for CBI as sooner or later the Supreme Court would held the constitution of CBI unconstitutional.[45]

Sid Harth • 2 mins ago

Bhopal gas tragedy The CBI was publicly seen as ineffective in trying the 1984 Bhopal disaster case. Former CBI joint director B. R. Lall has said that he was asked to remain soft on extradition for Union Carbide CEO Warren Anderson[29] and drop the charges (which included culpable homicide). Those accused received two-year sentences.[30] 2G spectrum scam Main article: 2G spectrum scam The UPA government allocated 2G spectrum to corporations at very low prices through corrupt and illegal means. The Supreme Court cited the CBI many times for its tardiness in the investigations;[31][32] only after the court began monitoring its investigations[33][34][35] were high-profile arrests made. Indian coal allocation scam Main article: Indian coal allocation scam This is a political scandal concerning the Indian government’s allocation of the nation’s coal deposits to private companies by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which cost the government INR10673.03 billion (US$180 billion). CBI director Ranjit Sinha submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court that the coal-scam status report prepared by the agency was shared with Congress Party law minister Ashwani Kumar “as desired by him” and with secretary-level officers from the prime minister’s office (PMO) and the coal ministry before presenting it to the court.[36] Autonomy Demanding independent investigations, the CBI said that although it deferred to the government’s authority in non-corruption cases the agency felt that sufficient financial and administrative powers (including a minimum three-year tenure to ensure “functional autonomy”) were required by the director. “As such, it is necessary that the director, CBI, should be vested with ex-officio powers of the Secretary to the Government of India, reporting directly to the minister, without having to go through the DoPT”, the agency said, adding that financial powers were not enough and it wanted a separate budget allocation.[37] Some form of autonomy has been granted by the Supreme Court of India to CBI when it held that CBI can prosecute senior bureaucrats without central government’s permission.[38] Indian Supreme Court also held that Section 6A of DSPE Act is unconstitutional.[39]

Sid Harth • 2 mins ago

Sister Abhaya Further information: Sister Abhaya murder case This case concerns the 27 March 1992 death of a nun who was found in a water well in the Saint Pius X convent hostel in Kottayam, Kerala. Five CBI investigations have failed to yield any suspects. Sohrabuddin case The CBI has been accused of supporting the ruling Congress Party against its opposition, the BJP. The CBI is investigating the Sohrabuddin case in Gujarat; Geeta Johri, also investigating the case, claimed that the CBI is pressuring her to falsely implicate former Gujarat minister Amit Shah.[24] Sant Singh Chatwal case Sant Singh Chatwal was a suspect in CBI records for 14 years. The agency had filed two charge sheets, sent letters rogatory abroad and sent a team to the United States to imprison Chatwal and his wife from 2–5 February 1997. On 30 May 2007 and 10 August 2008 former CBI directors Vijay Shankar and Ashwani Kumar, respectively, signed no-challenge orders on the imprisonment. Later, it was decided not to appeal their release. This closed a case of bank fraud in which Chatwal had been embroiled for over a decade. Along with four others, Chatwal was charged with being part of a “criminal conspiracy” to defraud the Bank of India’s New York branch of INR28.32 crore (US$4.7 million). Four charges were filed by the CBI, with Chatwal named a defendant in two. The other two trials are still in progress. RTI applicant Krishnanand Tripathi was denied access to public information concerning the closed cases. The Central Information Commission later ordered the CBI to disclose the information; however, the CBI is exempt from the RTI Act (see above). Chatwal is a recipient of the Padma Bhushan.[25][26][27] Malankara Varghese murder case This case concerns the 5 December 2002 death of T. M. Varghese (also known as Malankara Varghese), a member of the Malankara Orthodox Church managing committee and a timber merchant. Varghese Thekkekara, a priest and manager of the Angamali diocese of the rival Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (part of the Syriac Orthodox Church), was charged with murder and conspiracy on 9 May 2010. Thekkekara was not arrested after he was charged, for which the CBI was criticised by the Kerala High Court and the media.[28]

Sid Harth • 3 mins ago

Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case Main article: Priyadarshini Mattoo In this case Santosh Kumar Singh, the alleged murderer of a 22-year-old law student, was acquitted for what the judge called “deliberate inaction” by the investigating team. The accused was the son of a high-ranking officer in the Indian Police Service, the reason for the CBI’s involvement. The 1999 judgment noted that “the influence of the father of the accused has been there”. Embarrassed by the judgment, CBI Director R. K. Raghavan appointed two special directors (P. C. Sharma and Gopal Achari) to study the judgement. The CBI appealed the verdict in Delhi High Court in 2000, and the court issued a warrant for the accused. The CBI applied for an early hearing in July 2006; in October the High Court found Singh guilty of rape and murder, sentencing him to death.[citation needed]

Sid Harth • 4 mins ago

The judge ruled that there was no prima facie evidence against the accused which could be converted into legal evidence. Those freed included Bharatiya Janata Party president L. K. Advani; former Union ministers V. C. Shukla, Arjun Singh, Madhavrao Scindia, N. D. Tiwari and R. K. Dhawan, and former Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana. In 1997 a ruling by late Chief Justice of India J. S. Verma listed about two dozen guidelines which, if followed, would have ensured the independence of the investigating agency. Sixteen years later, successive governments circumvent the guidelines and treat the CBI as another wing of the government. Although the prosecution was prompted by a public-interest petition, the cases concluded with no convictions. In Vineet Narayan & Othrs v Union of lndia AIR 1996 SC 3386, the Supreme Court ruled that the Central Vigilance Commission should have a supervisory role over the CBI.[23]

Sid Harth • 4 mins ago

Bofors scandal Main article: Bofors scandal In January 2006 it was discovered that the CBI had quietly unfrozen bank accounts belonging to Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, one of those accused in the 1986 Bofors scandal which tainted the government of Rajiv Gandhi.[21] The CBI was responsible for the inquiry into the Bofors case. Associates of then-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi were linked to alleged payoffs made during the mid-1980s by Swedish arms firm AB Bofors, with US$40 million in kickbacks moved from Britain and Panama to secret Swiss banks. The 410 howitzers purchased in the US$1,300 million arms sale were reported to be inferior to those offered by a French competitor. The CBI, which unfroze INR21 crore (US$3.5 million) in a London bank in accounts held by Bofors, accused Quattrocchi and his wife Maria in 2006 but facilitated his travel by asking Interpol to take him off its wanted list on 29 April 2009. After communications from the CBI, Interpol withdrew the red corner notice on Quattrocchi.[22] Hawala scandal Main article: Hawala scandal See also: Vineet Narain A 1991 arrest of militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The Jain hawala case encompassed former Union ministers Ajit Kumar Panja and P. Shiv Shankar, former Uttar Pradesh governor Motilal Vora, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha. The 20 defendants were discharged by Special Judge V. B. Gupta in the INR650-million case, heard in New Delhi.

Sid Harth • 5 mins ago

Political interference Normally, cases assigned to the CBI are sensitive and of national importance. It is standard practice for state police departments to register cases under its jurisdiction; if necessary, the central government may transfer a case to the CBI. The agency has been criticised for its mishandling of several scams.[17][18][19] It has also been criticized for dragging its feet investigating prominent politicians, such as P. V. Narasimha Rao, Jayalalithaa, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav; this tactic leads to their acquittal or non-prosecution.[20]

Sid Harth • 5 mins ago

Criticism Corruption Because of the CBI’s political overtones,[11] it has been exposed by former officials such as Joginder Singh and B. R. Lall (director and joint director, respectively) as engaging in nepotism, wrongful prosecution and corruption. In Lall’s book, Who Owns CBI, he details how investigations are manipulated and derailed.[12] Corruption within the organisation[13][14] has been revealed in information obtained under the RTI Act,[15] and RTI activist Krishnanand Tripathi has alleged harassment from the CBI to save itself from exposure via RTI.[16]

Sid Harth • 6 mins ago

Right to Information (RTI) Main article: Right to Information Act CBI is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information Act. This exemption was granted by the government on 9 June 2011 (with similar exemptions to the National Investigating Agency (NIA), the Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid)) on the basis of national security. It was criticized by the Central Information Commission and RTI activists, who said the blanket exemption violated the letter and intent of the RTI Act.[10] The exemption was upheld in Madras High Court.

Sid Harth • 6 mins ago

Directors (1963–present) Name[9] Period D. P. Kohli 1963–68 F. V. Arul 1968–71 D. Sen 1971–77 S. N. Mathur 1977 C. V. Narsimhan 1977 John Lobo 1977–79 R. D. Singh 1979–80 J. S. Bajwa 1980–85 M. G. Katre 1985–89 A. P. Mukherjee 1989–90 R. Sekhar 1990 Vijay Karan 1990–92 S. K. Datta 1992–93 K. V. R. Rao 1993–96 Joginder Singh 1996–97 R. C. Sharma 1997–98 D. R. Karthikeyan 1998 T. N. Mishra 1998–99 R. K. Raghavan 4 Jan 1999 – 30 Apr 2001 P. C. Sharma 30 Apr 2001 – 6 Dec 2003 U. S. Misra 6 Dec 2003 – 6 Dec 2005 Vijay Shanker Tiwari 12 Dec 2005 – 31 Jul 2008 Ashwani Kumar 2 Aug 2008 – 30 Nov 2010 Amar Pratap Singh 30 Nov 2010 – 30 Nov 2012 Ranjit Sinha 30 Nov 2012 – present

Sid Harth • 7 mins ago

High Courts and the Supreme Court The High Courts and the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to order a CBI investigation into an offense alleged to have been committed in a state without the state’s consent, according to a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (in Civil Appeals 6249 and 6250 of 2001) on 17 Feb 2010. The bench ruled: Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. —Five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India, [7] The court clarified that this is an extraordinary power which must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations.[7][8]

Sid Harth • 7 mins ago

Relationship to state police Maintaining law and order is a state responsibility as “police” is a State subject, and the jurisdiction to investigate crime lies with the state police exclusively . The CBI being a Union subject may investigate: Offenses against central-government employees, or concerning affairs of the central government and employees of central public-sector undertakings and public-sector banks Cases involving the financial interests of the central government Breaches of central laws enforceable by the Government of India Major fraud or embezzlement; multi-state organised crime Multi-agency or international cases

Sid Harth • 8 mins ago

The Academy accommodates the training needs of all CBI ranks. Facilities for specialised courses are also made available to the officials of the state police, central police organisations (CPOs), public-sector vigilance organisations, bank and government departments and the Indian Armed Forces. Jurisdiction, powers and restrictions The legal powers of investigation of the CBI are derived from the DSPE Act 1946, which confers powers, duties, privileges and liabilities on the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) and officers of the Union Territories. The central government may extend to any area (except Union Territories) the powers and jurisdiction of the CBI for investigation, subject to the consent of the government of the concerned state. Members of the CBI at or above the rank of sub-inspector may be considered officers in charge of police stations. Under the act, the CBI can investigate only with notification by the central government.

Sid Harth • 8 mins ago

Infrastructure CBI headquarters is a INR186 crore (US$31 million), state-of-the-art 11-story building in New Delhi, housing all branches of the agency.[5] The 7,000-square-metre (75,000 sq ft) building is equipped with a modern communications system, an advanced record-maintenance system, storage space, computerised access control and an additional facility for new technology. Interrogation rooms, cells, dormitories and conference halls are provided. The building has a staff cafeteria with a capacity of 500, men’s and women’s gyms, a terrace garden and bi-level basement parking for 470 vehicles. Advanced fire-control and power-backup systems are provided, in addition to a press briefing room and media lounge.[5] The CBI Academy in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (east of Delhi) began in 1996.[6] It is about 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the New Delhi railway station and about 65 kilometres (40 mi) from Indira Gandhi International Airport. The 26.5-acre (10.7 ha) campus, with fields and plantations, houses the administrative, academic, hostel and residential buildings. Before the academy was built a small training centre at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi, conducted short-term in-service courses. The CBI then relied on state police-training institutions and the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad for basic training courses for deputy superintendents of police, sub-inspectors and constables.

Sid Harth • 9 mins ago

Selection committee According to the CVC Act 2003, the committee recommends a panel of officers for director of the CBI. It consists of: Chief Vigilance Commissioner – chairperson Vigilance Commissioners – members Secretary, Home Ministry – member Secretary (Coordination and Public Grievances) in the Cabinet Secretariat – member When making recommendations, the committee considers the views of the outgoing director.[3] Final selection is made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet from the panel recommended by the selection committee.[3][4]

Sid Harth • 10 mins ago

Kohli saw in the Special Police Establishment the potential to growing into a national investigative agency. He nurtured the organisation during his long career as inspector general and director and laid the foundation on which the agency grew. Organisational structure See also: List of police ranks in India The CBI is headed by a director, an IPS officer with a rank of Director General of Police or Commissioner of Police (State). The director is selected based on the CVC Act 2003, and has a two-year term. Other ranks in the CBI which may be staffed by the IPS are Special director, Additional director, Joint director, Deputy inspector general of police, Senior superintendent of police and Superintendent of police. Additional superintendent of police, Deputy superintendent of police, Inspector, Sub-inspector, assistant sub-inspector, head constable, senior constable and Constable are recruited through SSC or through deputation from Police and Income Tax Departments.

Sid Harth • 11 mins ago

CBI takes shape The CBI established a reputation as India’s foremost investigative agency with the resources for complicated cases, and it was requested to assist the investigation of crimes such as murder, kidnapping and terrorism. The Supreme Court and a number of high courts in the country also began assigning such investigations to the CBI on the basis of petitions filed by aggrieved parties. In 1987, the CBI was divided into two divisions: the Anti-Corruption Division and the Special Crimes Division. D. P. Kohli The founding director of the CBI was D. P. Kohli, who held the office from 1 April 1963 to 31 May 1968. Before this, Kohli was Inspector-general of police for the Special Police Establishment from 1955 to 1963 and held law-enforcement positions in Madhya Bharat (as chief of police), Uttar Pradesh and local central-government offices. For distinguished service, Kohli was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1967.

Sid Harth • 11 mins ago

The SPE’s scope was enlarged to cover all departments of the Government of India. Its jurisdiction extended to the Union Territories, and could be further extended to the states with the consent of the state governments involved. Sardar Patel, first Deputy Prime Minister of free India and head of the Home Department, desired to weed out corruption in erstwhile princely states such as Jodhpur, Rewa and Tonk. Patel directed Legal Advisor Karam Chand Jain to monitor criminal proceedings against the dewans and chief ministers of those states. The SPE acquired its current name by a Home Ministry resolution dated 1 April 1963, and the bureau was consolidated.With the 1969 bank nationalisation, banks and their employees also fell within the ambit of the CBI.

Sid Harth • 12 mins ago

History Special Police Establishment (SPE) The Central Bureau of Investigation traces its origins to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) (Hindi: विशेष पुलिस संस्थापन, Vishesh Police Sansthapan), established in 1941 by the government. The functions of the SPE were to investigate bribery and corruption in transactions with the War and Supply Department of India, set up during World War II with its headquarters in Lahore. The superintendent of the War Department and the SPE was Khan Bahadur Qurban Ali Khan, who later became governor of the North West Frontier Province at the creation of Pakistan. The first legal advisor of the War Department was Rai Sahib Karam Chand Jain. After the end of the war, there was a continued need for a central governmental agency to investigate bribery and corruption by central-government employees. Rai Sahib Karam Chand Jain remained its legal advisor when the department was transferred to the Home Department by the 1946 Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.

Sid Harth • 12 mins ago

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the foremost investigating police agency in India, an elite force which plays a role in public life and ensuring the health of the national economy. It is under the jurisdiction of the Government of India. The CBI is involved in major criminal probes, and is the Interpol agency in India. The CBI was established in 1941 as the Special Police Establishment, tasked with domestic security. It was renamed the Central Bureau of Investigation on 1 April 1963. Its motto is “Industry, Impartiality, Integrity”. Agency headquarters is in the Indian capital, New Delhi, with field offices located in major cities throughout India. The CBI is overseen by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions of the Union Government, headed by a Union Minister who reports directly to the Prime Minister. While analogous in structure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States of America, the CBI’s powers and functions are limited to specific crimes by Acts (primarily the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946). The current CBI director is Ranjit Sinha.

Sid Harth • 13 mins ago

Central Bureau of Investigation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Central Bureau of Investigation केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो Kendriya Anveshan Bureau Common name Central Bureau of Investigation Abbreviation CBI Cbi logo.svg Seal of the Central Bureau of Investigation Motto Industry, Impartiality, Integrity Agency overview Formed 1 April 1963 Preceding agency Special Police Establishment (SPE) (1941) Employees Sanctioned: 6590 Actual: 5666 Vacant: 924 (14%) as on 31 December 2011[1] Annual budget INR303.79 crore (US$50 million) (2011-2012)[1] Legal personality Governmental: Government agency Jurisdictional structure Federal agency India Governing body Government of India General nature Federal law enforcement Civilian agency Operational structure Headquarters New Delhi, India Agency executive Ranjit Sinha,IPS, Director Parent agency Department of Personnel and Training Child agency Interpol National Central Bureau India branch Regions 4[show] Facilities Branchs 52 [show]Notables Website cbi.nic.in

Sid Harth • 13 mins ago

Dr. S. Do you think CBI has credibility/integrity? You are making comments on SC’s observations of CBI Director. In February 2014, I wrote a letter to CJ of SC relating to Judges and in which I mentioned about CBI’s working in Andhra Pradesh. In two different PILs relating to political corruption, the court directed the CBI to enquire. In one case they took up the case with supersonic speed in consultation with two media groups. In the case of the other, the case was put in cupboard. The officer even after transfer stayed in the state helping that friend. He even helped to make a film and the same was released in one of the media group TV Channel just before the elections. He even presented his observations at the end. Neither the election commission nor the Supreme Court has taken any action on this. This is our CBI!!! Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Sid Harth • 14 mins ago

Babu Rajendran-Chandran · CS · DrAnanth-Naveen · DrAnanth-Naveen Up Voted Babu Rajendran Chandran vrs. employee at State Bank of India After reading this article,one is convinced that the CBI is tied down in a labyrinth of rules and laws and that the author is an apologist for the Lokpal Act. But what do these things have to do with the present”The CBI’s crisis of credibility?” Does the author mean that the present laws allow the CBI Director to entertain accused persons at his home and so to restore CBI’s credibility we must enact the Lokpal Act? Or If there were no interference, there wouldn’t be any Ranjit Sinhas in CBI?

Sid Harth • 14 mins ago

Dr.Ananth Naveen CBI should be autonomous where it is concerned with initiation of inquiry,investigation and filing of charge sheet. The interference of any kind in these by the executive will result in deterioration of institutional ethics and misuse of institution itself. CBI attracts most competent officers of our country and the political interference in its functioning will definitely erode their morale and inculcate a culture of inaction and inefficiency which would be a huge setback for the nation as a whole.

Sid Harth • 15 mins ago

Babu Rajendran-Chandran · KRAMKRISHNA Up Voted MVJRao Lord Denning of UK has clearly laid out the turfs for executive and investigating agency. But during UPA ‘ s tenure, exactly the opposite was implemented in collusion with ministers having high profile legal qualifications like Kapil Sibal, Manish Tiwari , Bansal and others who wanted to see and modify the charge sheets filed against actions of PM and other members of the executive. It happened in 2G scam, now coal-scam and name whatever. The executive used to stall clearances to investigate the officers involved in the scam as their help to politicians in the scam- process would come to light. PM used to deny or keep ” Maun muni” when the executive interference was brought to his notice. Only yesterday former CAG told publicly about the interference of executive with senior ministers approaching CAG to ensure the names PM and other executives are not mentioned in the audit report. Similarly, Bansal was scrutinizing the CBI reports to ensure PM was protected from the scam.

Sid Harth • 15 mins ago

K.Govindan There is a gradual erosion of power of the Prime Minister which means the erosion of the power of the people who elect the Prime Minister. This is not good for democracy. There is also an increasing interference in the functioning of the PM and his Ministers and the executive. NGOs are very active in interfering with the functions of the government. The Press is more vocal than is required. The PM and his cabinet colleagues on whom the people repose faith through elections should be more active and should exercise powers of appointment of any authority including Director of CBI and oversee the functions of the authorities. Of course some checks and balances should be there but these are provided in the Constitution itself. No action by PM taken in good faith should be questioned. Amendments to the Constitution should not be carried out in haste. Similarly laws should not be enacted in haste. In the recent past, the haste has been shown in amending constitution which is not good

Sid Harth • 16 mins ago

Sriram The only institution bereft of cronyism seems to be the supreme court ! All the other institutions have been tarnished. With the national judicial commission being put in place I am not sure what would happen to the hope we all carry about this country, As Modi mentioned in Japan we seem to be going back to the pre 18th century era not only in the international context but also in the indian context. The era of kings and queens with succession plan based on pedigree and not on merit , cronyism , nepotism, abrasive use of power etc. is unfolding nowbefore our eyes.

Sid Harth • 16 mins ago

lokesh No independent agency in the government is headed by a single person. indeed time has come to make it a multimember body including officers from other enforcement agencies. The CBI body should decide by majority like CVC. The CBI body should have officers from IPS, IRS and other enforcement agencies so that the complicated economic crimes can be better tackled rather than police personnel alone. time has come to revamp it so that all enforcement agencies should be part of CBI.

Sid Harth • 17 mins ago

SP This incident has proved that any part of Governance can be rotten. Politicians are usual suspects. But officials, regulators, pretty much nobody can be trusted 100%. What is strange here is that CBI officer meeting suspects almost as a routine, while ministers have to rely on their nephews and other middlemen.

Sid Harth • 17 mins ago

Dr.Ananth Naveen I pity you for your preoccupation with cynicism. Certain people are good for only criticising others. Your views about government and Supreme Court are short sighted and lack insight. Government can not be alienated from public. In a democracy the people are the one electing the government to run the country. It should always be remembered that The Supreme Court is an appointed body and not the elected one, hence is not representative of popular aspirations of public. Government is definitely trying to fulfil the aspirations of people. We have to understand that development is not an end but a never ending process, and this process is highly complex, strategic and requires a great amount of planning and also time. As a responsible citizens we should contribute to this process in all the possible ways.

Sid Harth • 18 mins ago

Babu Rajendran-Chandran · KRAMKRISHNA · CS Up Voted undefined Supreme court is also made up Indians who come from Indian population. Indian population itself is corrupt and gives corrupt civil officers, elects corrupt politicians and puts up with corrupt system. Why in India it takes 10 to 30 years to give a judgement in civil case or in some criminal case.

Sid Harth • 18 mins ago

D 2 to 3 times a week, if not more frequently, one reads about how successive Indian Govts turned India into a ‘Banana republic’. // Congress ruined India, BJP hopefully will not continue the ruination. // The PM will know that if the citizens of his own country do not respect the PM, Govt, party, politicians in general – as happened in abundance under the last PM – it is near impossible to improve India’s standing as a civilised, democratic country, let alone become a voice people listen to world over. // Things are very bad in India and the Supreme Court seems to be the only hope Indians have to rectify matters. Hopefully the SC will treat all Indians the same – no matter how high their exalted position – and ensure that Indian politicians and bureaucrats begin to learn to show respect for laws of the land. This can happen if the SC makes it clear through exemplary punishments that crime will not pay dividends in India any more.

Sid Harth • 19 mins ago

vejay CBI in hands of Politicians. Lokpal is pending because of LoP issue. LoP is a politician who is the ex-government.Now,if CBI director is appointed he surely going to investigate a old case,old case means a case where the LoP of now were the govt party.So,ultimately CBI gonna investigate his party,then how it is possible to expect lokpal will bring justice to CBI.Its in the hands of politicians not in the hands of Lokpal or anything.

Sid Harth • 19 mins ago

vijay mattoo India is not UK. Here all police establishments are a dreaded lot and meant to carry out the will of their political masters.Corruption in our society is endemic and socially accepted .With the passage of time we may have to constitute another body to oversee the functioning of Lokpal .

Sid Harth • 20 mins ago

White Crow Even many officers posted in their native states and home cadres in CBI act in a parochial and castiest manner in harassing the upright officers who risked their lives in saving the lives of citizens during riots. Why such officers should be posted in their home states. How theg have been allowed to act in such a brazen manner. Can CBI tell how many officers are posted in home states and why?

Sid Harth • 20 mins ago

V Gupta Though there is much to be commended in N K Singh’s views on how to clarify the role of the CBI, there is little doubt that the ultimate result will depend on the personality, credibility, competence and perspective of the CBI director. Based on his reported comments I different situations the current director has found himself in the last year or so, one gets the strong impression that the man does not have the faintest idea about how a person in his position supposed to conduct himself . Persons who appointed him must be held accountable for this shameful state of affairs. On the issue of the Director reporting to LokPal on matters referred to him by LokPal, the issue is likely to get quite confusing and muddled where the two disagree. After all, CBI must investigate and prosecute criminality where it finds it, seeking Lok Pal’s approval is inconsistent with that duty.

Sid Harth • 21 mins ago

sridhar The time taken to investigate, crime by politicians and big business, to its logical conclusion and the poor conviction rate shows the nexus between big business and political power as well as the stranglehold politicians have on CBI. From Lallu to Jagan Mohan Reddy and innumerable big wigs in between, one common theme is the delay. Justice delayed is justice denied and that is what people experience day in and day out. Collecting and presenting evidence to convince courts to hand down punishment is usually a stop-start process, with investigating officers transferred in the middle and many other means employed which do not make it into news. With passage of time the interest and relevance of the same is also lost on people and eventually the criminals are given a clean chit 20y later. A truly independent investigating agency whose operational matters are not tempered with by politicians is the need of the hour.

Sid Harth • 21 mins ago

Finally, a new CBI Act must substitute the archaic DSPE Act. The role, jurisdiction and legal powers of the CBI need to be clearly laid down. (N.K. Singh is a former Joint Director, CBI, and Janata Dal (United) State executive member.) Jyotiswaroop As arrest and prosecution are in themselves ‘punishment’, it would be better to have an additional accountability mechanism (besides the judiciary) in the form of an independent prosecution directorate to check possible misuse by the CBI of powers to arrest and prosecute.

Sid Harth • 22 mins ago

Centrality of Lokpal The Lokpal Act goes further and provides for the appointment of the Director of CBI by a collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and Chief Justice of India. This should meet the requirement of proper selection. Now let us come to the main concern of the Supreme Court on how to “liberate the CBI from any extraneous consideration and interference so that the investigation is not maligned.” One ought not to mix up this issue with the conduct of an individual officer, however high. The answer to the court’s concerns perhaps lies in recognising the centrality of the institution of Lokpal. Under this Act, the services of the CBI would be placed at the disposal of the Lokpal for investigation of cases, which the latter decides to take up. The CBI will report not to the government of the day, but to the Lokpal for investigation into such cases, over which the Lokpal will have the power to oversee and supervise, in the manner the Supreme Court has done in some cases of controversial nature.

Sid Harth • 22 mins ago

The above judgment has been quoted by the Supreme Court with approval in scores of cases, including in the 1997 Vineet Narain case. The Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003 was a result of this order of the apex court. But it was an apology of an act. For instance, it brought back the ‘Single Directive’ requiring the CBI to obtain prior permission of the government before initiating enquiries into allegations of corruption against government officers in the rank of Joint Secretaries and above, which had been quashed by the Supreme Court earlier. The Supreme Court on May 6, 2014, again quashed Section 6 (A) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPEA) of 1946 in reiteration of its earlier order dated 18.12.97.

Sid Harth • 23 mins ago

The line between superintendence and interference in its investigation work is no doubt thin but by no means is it vague. Under our legal system, the political executive cannot cross that line. Be it the CBI or the police, they do investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code, and for this work, they are accountable to law and to law alone. The English judge Lord Denning had put it succinctly in the case Regina versus Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 1988, demarcating the duties of the Commissioner of Police and Secretary of the State (Home Minister), thus: “I have no hesitation, however, in holding that, like every constable in the land, he should be, and is, independent of the executive. He is not subject to the orders of the Secretary of State… I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority (which in the U.K. means local executive authority overseeing police work) tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him.”

Sid Harth • 23 mins ago

The meaning of autonomy Some views in this matter have been rather misleading and it needs to be reiterated that autonomy does not mean complete freedom or unbridled independence. Autonomy for the CBI or for that matter any investigating agency means the freedom to investigate crime, while it remains under the administrative control of the government of the day. Much was made of Section 4(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which vests superintendence of the establishment in the Central government. This Act provides legal power to the CBI and under it, the Special Police Establishment (SPE) division conducts its investigative work. The agency does not function in isolation. It should be part of governance machinery. In its work, it needs the cooperation of other agencies of the government, such as the Income Tax department and the Enforcement Directorate. For investigation abroad, it needs the cooperation of foreign governments, for which it needs support of the Ministry of External Affairs here. “A new CBI Act must substitute the archaic Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and the role, jurisdiction and legal powers of the agency need to be clearly laid down”

Sid Harth • 24 mins ago

For those of us who have worked in the CBI for a long time, it is a matter of grave concern that the agency is facing such a crisis of credibility. However, this development should not be usurped by a section of people keen to continue the stranglehold of political and bureaucratic authority over the professional work of the CBI or any other agency. About a week earlier, the Supreme Court had called the CBI “a caged parrot” which “speaks in its master’s voice” after the investigating agency admitted in an affidavit that Ashwani Kumar, who quit as the Law Minister earlier, and senior officials of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Coal Ministry had made certain changes in the ‘status report,’ on the allocation of coal blocks. During the hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre whether it was contemplating a law to make the working of the CBI independent and insulate it from extraneous intrusion and interferences. The Group of Ministers (GoM), set up by the Central government in May 2013, was entrusted with the task to bring a Cabinet proposal on the law to safeguard the CBI’s autonomy. The report of the GoM was duly submitted to the court. Some others including the CBI also submitted their views. The court’s orders in this regard are awaited.

Sid Harth • 24 mins ago

CBI is in a hot seat September 13, 2014 elcidharthEdit Opinion » Comment September 12, 2014 Updated: September 12, 2014 01:12 IST The CBI’s crisis of credibility N. K. Singh Comment (21) DIFFICULT TIMES: For those who have worked in the CBI, the ongoing controversy is a cause of concern. Picture shows CBI Director Ranjit Sinha at a conference in New Delhi. PTI DIFFICULT TIMES: For those who have worked in the CBI, the ongoing controversy is a cause of concern. Picture shows CBI Director Ranjit Sinha at a conference in New Delhi. The line between superintendence and interference in the agency’s investigation work is no doubt thin but by no means is it vague The Supreme Court is currently seized with allegations against the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Ranjit Sinha for meeting persons linked with the 2G scam and coal scam at his residence. The court, which is currently monitoring investigation into these corruption cases, has evidence reflected in the entries in the visitors register maintained by his security staff. On Monday, September 8, 2014, the court described the allegations as “serious” and asked the Director to file his version through an affidavit within a week.

Source: TOI

...andI am Sid Harth