The Central Bureau of Investigation is no stranger to a rap on the knuckles from the judiciary – in the past, the country’s premier agency has been called a “caged parrot”, “shoddy investigator,” etc by various judges. Even by that low standard, the latest criticism by the judiciary in the Chanda Kochhar arrest case should have come as a deep embarrassment to the CBI. The Bombay High Court judgement, details of which were made available early last week, termed her arrest an “abuse of power” carried out “without application of mind” in blatant disregard of the law. While the case against the Kochhars will continue, it is the stinging criticism that has dented the CBI’s credibility—yet again.
That’s unfortunate, and if the Kochhars are let off eventually, they should thank the CBI for botching up the investigation process. As per the court’s observation, the Kochhars were not interrogated or summoned for over three years after the FIR was filed and their arrest in 2022 was not on the basis of any additional material discovered during the probe. What was the agency doing for over three years in such a high-profile and sensitive case?
Observers of the CBI way of working say they are not surprised by the amateurish manner in which the Kochhar case is being handled, as there have been several such goof-ups in the past. For example, take the Vijay Mallya case. The puzzling and mysterious process by which the CBI had watered down its look-out-circular (LoC) against Mallya became a matter of public scrutiny. It helped Mallya to flee the country. Initially, the CBI had issued an LoC against Mallya which ordered him to be detained if he intended to leave the country or arrive from abroad. However, it was later diluted, asking the immigration authorities to only inform the agency in case of his travel. The original lookout notice was an “inadvertent error”, the CBI reportedly said.
Also Read Inside track by Coomi Kapoor: Priyanka hesitates Ringside view by Tushar Bhaduri: Leagues-vs-country conflict finally reaches India Pilgrimage commerce and sustainability Evaluating Mintzberg’s 10 schools of thoughts for strategy formulation Or, look at the Aircel-Maxis case. In August 2014, CBI filed a chargesheet against former telecommunications minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi Maran. However, three years later, the CBI special court dropped all charges, saying the agency “pressed charges due to misreading of official files.”
There’s more. Consider the mishandling of the NSE co-location scam. Court records have enough evidence of a piecemeal charge sheet, incomplete investigations, distortion and digression from the original case despite having the benefits of forensic audit reports, and the findings of the market regulator’s own technical advisory committee. The result is obvious: even after so many years of the probe, the only charge the CBI was able to bring against NSE’s former boss Chitra Ramkrishna pertained to an illegal appointment she made at a senior level, and not related to her role in abuse of server architecture.
It is inexplicable why the CBI was so obsessed with the reported closeness of two adults and didn’t investigate the offences for which custody of the accused was sought at the time of remand. “CBI charge-sheet is piecemeal and not filed in respect of all offences, the subject matter of the FIR. CBI is not legally permitted to pick one portion of investigation and to complete it and thereafter file a piecemeal charge sheet,” the judge had said.
In many of the cases, the agency’s strongest argument has been that it has “reasons to believe” that the accused is involved in economic crimes. Many courts have observed that mere “reason to believe cannot be subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. It is not an arbitrary power which can be mechanically exercised”. This ham-handed way of working was nothing new. For example, during the UPA regime, the CBI had decided to launch a ‘new’ investigation against the divestment of Hindustan Zinc, twelve years after the divestment and one year after the Supreme Court had rejected all challenges against the privatisation. The trigger for the investigation was an anonymous oral complaint.
Not only was the CBI acting like a trigger-happy cowboy, it was behaving like a dumb one. The investigation agency also initiated a probe into the sale of Laxmi Vilas Hotel in Udaipur, 12 years after the heritage property was sold—again based on an oral complaint.
Even in the Coalgate scam, the CBI failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to special CBI judge OP Saini acquitting A Raja and all the others accused in December 2017. Saini castigated the CBI for its failings, saying that it had failed to prove the charges made against the accused made in the “well-choreographed chargesheet” and that no useful evidence had been produced by the agency in court. He also said that many facts recorded in the chargesheet are factually incorrect and that by the end of the case, “the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident”.
Given the increasing complexity of economic crimes, the quality of manpower is another serious issue. After all, decoding a money trail is the job of specialists. It thus seems obvious that the investigative agency’s handling of economic crimes has been lacklustre. One of the reasons could be vacant posts which are not being filled up at the required pace that has time and again been flagged by various parliamentary panels. Whatever be the reason, the CBI should act fast on it. Just high-profile arrests, subsequent bails, and then a prolonged period of inactivity after the TV cameras switch off have become too repetitive, strengthening the chorus of witch-hunting against the agency.
“The CBI has lost its credibility,” Arun Jaitley, then-BJP leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, said in 2013. More than a decade later, the agency is still stuck with that image. It’s high time to get out of the Rip Van Winkle existence.
The Central Bureau of Investigation is no stranger to a rap on the knuckles from the judiciary – in the past, the country’s premier agency has been called a “caged parrot”, “shoddy investigator,” etc by various judges. Even by that low standard, the latest criticism by the judiciary in the Chanda Kochhar arrest case should have come as a deep embarrassment to the CBI. The Bombay High Court judgement, details of which were made available early last week, termed her arrest an “abuse of power” carried out “without application of mind” in blatant disregard of the law. While the case against the Kochhars will continue, it is the stinging criticism that has dented the CBI’s credibility—yet again.
That’s unfortunate, and if the Kochhars are let off eventually, they should thank the CBI for botching up the investigation process. As per the court’s observation, the Kochhars were not interrogated or summoned for over three years after the FIR was filed and their arrest in 2022 was not on the basis of any additional material discovered during the probe. What was the agency doing for over three years in such a high-profile and sensitive case?
Observers of the CBI way of working say they are not surprised by the amateurish manner in which the Kochhar case is being handled, as there have been several such goof-ups in the past. For example, take the Vijay Mallya case. The puzzling and mysterious process by which the CBI had watered down its look-out-circular (LoC) against Mallya became a matter of public scrutiny. It helped Mallya to flee the country. Initially, the CBI had issued an LoC against Mallya which ordered him to be detained if he intended to leave the country or arrive from abroad. However, it was later diluted, asking the immigration authorities to only inform the agency in case of his travel. The original lookout notice was an “inadvertent error”, the CBI reportedly said.
Or, look at the Aircel-Maxis case. In August 2014, CBI filed a chargesheet against former telecommunications minister Dayanidhi Maran and his brother Kalanithi Maran. However, three years later, the CBI special court dropped all charges, saying the agency “pressed charges due to misreading of official files.”
There’s more. Consider the mishandling of the NSE co-location scam. Court records have enough evidence of a piecemeal charge sheet, incomplete investigations, distortion and digression from the original case despite having the benefits of forensic audit reports, and the findings of the market regulator’s own technical advisory committee. The result is obvious: even after so many years of the probe, the only charge the CBI was able to bring against NSE’s former boss Chitra Ramkrishna pertained to an illegal appointment she made at a senior level, and not related to her role in abuse of server architecture.
It is inexplicable why the CBI was so obsessed with the reported closeness of two adults and didn’t investigate the offences for which custody of the accused was sought at the time of remand. “CBI charge-sheet is piecemeal and not filed in respect of all offences, the subject matter of the FIR. CBI is not legally permitted to pick one portion of investigation and to complete it and thereafter file a piecemeal charge sheet,” the judge had said.
In many of the cases, the agency’s strongest argument has been that it has “reasons to believe” that the accused is involved in economic crimes. Many courts have observed that mere “reason to believe cannot be subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. It is not an arbitrary power which can be mechanically exercised”. This ham-handed way of working was nothing new. For example, during the UPA regime, the CBI had decided to launch a ‘new’ investigation against the divestment of Hindustan Zinc, twelve years after the divestment and one year after the Supreme Court had rejected all challenges against the privatisation. The trigger for the investigation was an anonymous oral complaint.
Not only was the CBI acting like a trigger-happy cowboy, it was behaving like a dumb one. The investigation agency also initiated a probe into the sale of Laxmi Vilas Hotel in Udaipur, 12 years after the heritage property was sold—again based on an oral complaint.
Even in the Coalgate scam, the CBI failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to special CBI judge OP Saini acquitting A Raja and all the others accused in December 2017. Saini castigated the CBI for its failings, saying that it had failed to prove the charges made against the accused made in the “well-choreographed chargesheet” and that no useful evidence had been produced by the agency in court. He also said that many facts recorded in the chargesheet are factually incorrect and that by the end of the case, “the quality of prosecution totally deteriorated and it became directionless and diffident”.
Given the increasing complexity of economic crimes, the quality of manpower is another serious issue. After all, decoding a money trail is the job of specialists. It thus seems obvious that the investigative agency’s handling of economic crimes has been lacklustre. One of the reasons could be vacant posts which are not being filled up at the required pace that has time and again been flagged by various parliamentary panels. Whatever be the reason, the CBI should act fast on it. Just high-profile arrests, subsequent bails, and then a prolonged period of inactivity after the TV cameras switch off have become too repetitive, strengthening the chorus of witch-hunting against the agency.
“The CBI has lost its credibility,” Arun Jaitley, then-BJP leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, said in 2013. More than a decade later, the agency is still stuck with that image. It’s high time to get out of the Rip Van Winkle existence.
Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes, and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
