'Autonomy of the CBI is a myth'

<div class="section1"><div class="Normal">NEW DELHI: The country’s premier investigating agency, CBI, has a soft underbelly — pulls and pressures from those wielding power and influence. And by CBI boss US Misra''s own admission, the agency isn’t impervious to it. <br /><br />In fact, he says: “The autonomy of the CBI is a myth.� <br /><br />In a rare and surprisingly frank interaction with <span style="" font-style:="" italic="">TOI</span>, Misra admitted that the agency at times comes under political pressure and pulls from important quarters.<br /><br />"Our job is to strike at the roots of corruption, but the laws and codes guiding the functioning of the agency are constantly pulling us back," he said.<br /> <br />Misra pointed out that although the anti-corruption drive tops his agenda, inadequacies of power hinder the agency’s work. <br /><br />The biggest hindrance is the provision in the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Act, which has restored the requirement for prior sanctions for investigating senior officials. The formality of getting clearance from the government departments has proved a big impediment. <br /><br />"Sometimes it results in delays, at times it means compromising secrecy and very often we meet with refusal," Misra said.<br /><br />The CBI chief cited the instance of... <br /><br /></div> </div><div class="section2"><div class="Normal">...the Ayodhya case. The investigations were completed within a year and five chargesheets filed by the end of 1993. “But the cases are going on after so many years.� <br /><br />He added that in a recent case involving DDA and a former high court judge, the agency “had to wait more than seven months to get prosecution sanction.�<br /><br />And refusal of permission? Misra spoke about a former petroleum minister against whom CBI conducted a probe and found sufficient evidence to press for prosecution. “But we filed for closure last year since we were denied sanction,� he said. <br /><br />It has been the agency’s contention that in the years since since 1997 when the Supreme Court struck down a legal provision known as the “single directive�, the number of corruption cases and recovery of ill-gotten assets has gone up. In 2003, the government re-introduced the provision in the CVC Act. <br /><br />The top sleuth admitted that the moment a case is registered by CBI and reported by the media, phones start ringing and influential people begin pleading. Pressures start mounting in the form of ‘‘requests’’. <br /><br />Asked why do some cases virtually go into hybernation after an initial splash by the agency, Misra said, "Investigation is a quiet business. The expectations are high from the agency but what one has to understand is that CBI is not the total criminal justice system of the society."<br /> <br />But there is some good news on a scam that has almost been forgotten after making the initial headlines. <br /><br />Investigation into the Ajit Jogi case — bribing opposition MLAs in Chhattisgarh — is almost complete. "We are only waiting for the result of the voice test from the laboratory," Misra said. <br /><br /></div> </div><div class="section3"><div class="Normal"><span style="" font-weight:="" bold="">Of political pulls & pressures </span><br /><br />Anti-corruption drive is top of CBI’s agenda, but agency’s power inadequate and their work is hindered. Law says CBI needs prior sanction to probe senior officers. <br /><br />This leads to delays, refusals, compromising secrecy and ‘requests’ from influential people.<br /><br /><span style="" font-weight:="" bold="">Demoralising instances </span><br /><br />Ayodhya case: Investigations completed, 5 chargesheets filed by 1993. But case still continues <br /><br />DDA case: Involved HC ex-judge. CBI had to wait 7 months for sanction to prosecute.</div> </div>