Read Time: 13 minutes

The Madras High Court on Tuesday issued a slew of directions to the Centre to “release the caged parrot” that the Court said CBI has supposedly become.

Court insisted that formation of an Act granting statutory status with more powers and greater jurisdiction to the agency so that it becomes more independent like the Election Commission and Comptroller and Auditor-General of India is paramount.

The Division Bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice B Pugalend while disposing of the writ petition for the demand of the present case to be transferred to the Central Bureau of investigation observed that,

"An aura of reverence is attached to the name of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). There is always a clamour for CBI investigation."

In this light Bench noted that,

“People revere CBI as a premier trustworthy agency, which could investigate the cases impartially and fairly and prosecute the case before the Court efficiently and properly. When such is the trust and faith of the people, very sadly CBI is dragging its feet, whenever there is a demand for CBI enquiry on the ground that resources and man power available with CBI are very restricted and therefore, it cannot conduct investigations. This is the usual stereotype version/defence of the CBI before the Courts.”

It must be noted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hawala case viz., Vineet Narayanan Vs. Union of India, had observed that, “CBI” is a caged parrot speaking in its master's voice. 

Previously, the Court in the present case had declined to refer the subject case to CBI, and raised 15 queries, regarding the resources, man power, investigating skills, infrastructural facilities available with CBI in the interest of the public.

With respect to query regarding vacancies in the cadre the Bench ordered,

“The Central Government is directed to take a decision on the comprehensive proposal for cadre review and restructuring of CBI within a period of one month.”

Further, with regard to the reasons for enormous delay in concluding the investigation by CBI as there was a huge pendency in CFSL, it was observed by the Bench that,

“There shall be a direction to the Central Government to enhance the infrastructural facilities available with CFSL in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh or to establish CFSL, zone wise, so that there would not be any delay in getting the opinion of the experts. The Central Government should establish at least one CFSL in each zone viz., South, East and West within one year.”

The Bench stated that, “Officials and staff should be independently recruited and they should be given proper training in the academy of CBI as well as in the foreign countries if necessary. Experts in cyber laws, Chartered Accountants and other experts in various fields should also be recruited, instead of getting them on deputation.” Hence, it asserted that there is a necessity for inducting and recruiting their own officials, instead of depending upon deputation from Police force and other forces.

“There is a need to increase the resources and man power to investigate more cases. For that there is a necessity to have a special Act by which the CBI could be granted a statutory status. Though, very sensitive and complicated cases are being investigated or handled, the number of cases handled by CBI is just equivalent or less than the case handled by a single police station in the country,” noted the Bench.

The following directions were given by the Bench in the interest of the Institution/CBI as well as public who have got enormous faith and trust in the Premier Institution after the queries were answered above:

(1)Government of India is directed to consider and take a decision for enactment of a separate Act giving statutory status with more powers and jurisdiction to CBI at the earliest.

(2)CBI shall be made more independent like Election Commission of India and Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

(3)Separate budgetary allocation shall be made for CBI.

(4)Director of CBI shall be given powers as that of the Secretary to the Government and shall directly report to the Minister/Prime Minister without going through DoPT.

(5)Central Government shall make CBI independent with functional autonomy without administrative control of the Government.

(6)CFSL shall have more modern facilities and should be augmented on par with the facilities available to Federal Bureau of Investigation in United States of America and Scotland Yard in United Kingdom.

(7)DoPT is directed to pass orders on the CBI restructuring letter dated 09.09.2020 after consulting with other departments if necessary, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(8)CBI should file a well thought out Policy within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for permanently recruiting (i) Cyber Forensic experts and (ii) Financial Audit experts, so that all the branches/wings of CBI should have these experts available with them and not on case to case basis.

(9)DoPT should clear all the pending proposals pertaining to CBI's infrastructure development e.g. land construction, residential accommodation, upgradation of available technical gadgets etc., within a period of six weeks.

(10)CFSL attached to CBI should clear all the pending cases as on 31.12.2020. Similarly, other FSLs should also offer their Forensic opinion pending as on 31.12.2020 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(11)The details of cases wherein charges have not been framed by the Trial Courts despite the charge sheets having been filed by CBI for more than one year, should be shared by Director, CBI with the respective Registrar Generals of the High Courts.

(12)Since CBI itself has stated in reply to Para ‘O’ that CBI has to work within the constraints of shortage of manpower, Director, CBI should send another detailed proposal seeking further increase in the divisions/wings as well as strength of Officers in CBI to the Government of India within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and Government of India should pass orders on the same within a period of three months of its receipt.

The matter will be taken up next after six weeks.

[Case Title - Ramanathapuram District Pathikkapattor Sangam v. The State of Tamil Nadu]