It is sad and gladdening at the same time to see that the central government needed a bone-chilling censure and a no-nonsense order from the Supreme Court to work on a law to grant independence to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh had nearly two terms to do it, but he procrastinated and procrastinated, believing like all his predecessors that despite the Supreme Court’s occasional angry outbursts, the government control over the CBI would continue as usual. We have to still thank Dr Manmohan Singh only, because it is he who, in order to save his skin, asked the now-removed law minister, Mr Ashwani Kumar and PMO officials to call the CBI director, Mr Ranjit Sinha with the draft status report he was to submit to the Supreme Court on the coal block allocations to companies. We have also to thank Dr Singh that during the meeting, the “heart” of the report was changed, as the apex court judges discovered much to their dismay. 

When he sits down alone, Dr Singh might think: “Had the CBI director not been called, had there been no meeting, had there been no changes, perhaps we would not have been forced to make a law to free CBI from external influence.” But it is too late now. The apex court has not given his government much time, just a few weeks, to prepare a draft law. The government has constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by the Finance Minister, Mr P Chidambaram for the purpose. There is not much room for the Manmohan government to play vague or clever on the draft law, for, given the situation, the Supreme Court would not accept any vagueness. Although finally it would be the prerogative of the Parliament to pass the law, the provisions of the draft legislation need to be very clear on securing independence and functional autonomy of the CBI.

The Congress and the other constituents of the UPA now in power would not have liked it to happen. Thanks to the government control, the Congress has been using the CBI as a lever to keep the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party on its side, since the leaders of these parties, Mr Lalu Prasad, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Ms Mayawati are facing investigation or prosecution by the CBI on criminal charges. But the government being forced to make a law to grant CBI functional autonomy would hardly be a cause for celebration even in the opposition camps. The opposition led by the BJP had stalled the proceedings of the Parliament to press their demand for removal of Mr Ashwani Kumar. They are demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister as well.

However, the NDA ruled at the Centre for six years from 1998 to 2004, and they could have made a law granting CBI independence and functional autonomy if they wanted. A situation similar to today’s had arisen with the then Supreme Court chief justice, the late J S Verma passing an over 70-page order ruling that the government should not have the power to appoint CBI director. Justice Verma directed that the appointment should not be through the Appointments Committee of the cabinet, but through a committee of officials. Government control over CBI had irked the apex court in the wake of unsatisfactory progress by the CBI investigators into several politically sensitive cases including the JMM bribery case, the Bofors kickback case, the Fodder Scam, the LoC scam probe, the Lakhubhai cheating case and the telecom scam. The Supreme Court issued an order asking the government to provide full autonomy to the CBI, functional and in appointment of its director.

The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government said it would honour the Supreme Court order and take steps to allow full autonomy to the CBI.  “The ministry for personnel is preparing the reply to be submitted on behalf of the government next week in response to the Supreme Court order asking the government to provide full autonomy to the CBI, functional and in appointment of its director,” the Vajpayee government said. In the following years, the authority of appointment of CBI director was shifted from the government to the Central Vigilance Commission, and the director’s tenure was fixed for two years. But there was no functional autonomy and independence granted to the CBI.

Most people, including former CBI directors and media analysts who have watched government and political parties at close hands had declared autonomy to CBI as a “pipe dream”. But they probably turned their thought car to the Pessimism Lane too early. The indications were very clear from the way the Supreme Court had been going hammer and tongs over CBI autonomy during the past decade and a half that it was the apex court judges alone who were going to demolish the stubborn wall the political parties, as nests of birds of the same feather, had built to retain the CBI as a caged parrot.