The Central Bureau of Investigation was helmed by an interim Director for over a month between December 2016 and January 2017, much to the consternation of analysts, commentators and aam aadmi. An NGO, Common Cause, filed a PIL in the Supreme Court alleging that the Government had acted in a “completely malafide, arbitrary and illegal manner” in this regard. The petition was dismissed after a regular Director was appointed. The NGO’s plea to have the Minutes of the high-powered Selection Committee placed in Court was rejected on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the petition.

While it may not have been brought on the Court Records and the Attorney General held it to be confidential, the Dissent Note of Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha and Member of the High-Powered Selection Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, curiously found its way to a section of the print media. Presumably, they are part of the Minutes. The contents are both interesting and significant. Whatever may have been the underlying political compulsions, it must be acknowledged that the Note highlighted key fundamental issues of transparency, equity and consistency in selection to sensitive, senior positions in Government which are relevant across multiple sectors and agencies. Ever so often these are ruthlessly trashed to rot in subterranean governance vaults. Citing from judgments in the Vineet Narayan and others vs Union of India case delivered in 1998 by Justice J S Verma, and Union of India vs C Dinankar IPS case delivered in 2004 by Justice V N Khare, Kharge noted, “It is incumbent on this Committee that the candidate who outranks other candidates on the parameters of experience in the field of anti-corruption and integrity must be accorded highest preference… Selection of one who has NIL experience in the CBI and in the field of anti-corruption is a major departure and dilution to the above mentioned criteria which was followed by successive Governments for the post of Director, CBI. To protect the institutional independence of CBI, the Committee should select the most competent candidate according to existing procedures and laws. It is abundantly clear that the Committee has overlooked a more qualified, experienced and competent candidate and also seniority, integrity and experience in the field of anti-corruption envisaged in the Act, which goes against the spirit and objective of this Committee. Overlooking experience will not only be unfair but also put a question mark on the bonafides and intent of the Committee and also of the Government.”

Notwithstanding the easy judicial pass-through, two tough questions still remain unaddressed. They relate to what may be reasonably construed as a tactical delay in filling the top post and the inexplicable premium on absence of domain expertise, along with their attendant implications. Being the premier national investigating agency, the CBI is permanently in the public eye. The perception, undeserved or otherwise, that it selectively targets opponents of the Government in power continues to shadow it relentlessly. Denials and rebuttals, standard in a jaded response-package, have not made much difference. Former Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, have directly and indirectly hinted at the use of CBI against them to exert political pressure. More recently, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, miffed at the arrest of Trinamul MP, Sudip Bandopadhyaya, in the Rose Valley Chit Fund Company case. She has dubbed the CBI as the “Conspiracy Bureau of Investigation”, which was being misused by the Prime Minister for “vendetta politics”. Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi, predictably joined the verbal fisticuffs, claiming that electoral jitters had prompted action against Manish Sisodia, his Deputy Chief Minister, and Satyendra Jain, Health Minister.

The CBI is probing high-profile cases, including the Rs 3767-crore VVIP chopper scam in which the former Air Chief, S P Tyagi, was arrested; the Embraer deal; coal and 2G scams, Vyapam case, NHRM case, chit fund cases, NPAs of public sector banks as well as many corruption and disproportionate assets cases against public servants. Saddled with various organisational deficiencies, its image and professionalism, never the toast of the town, took a major hit after the suicide of the entire family of Mr Bansal, DG, Department of Company Affairs, allegedly attributable to inquisitorial excesses. No FIR has been lodged against any official so far.

The demeaning treatment meted out to retired Secretaries to the Government of India, Shyamal Ghosh and H C Gupta, by the CBI in the course of investigating the 2G scam and Coalgate was greatly disturbing and still rankles in Government circles. To deepen the perception-crisis faced by the Agency are the livid outpourings of Rajendra Kumar, an IAS officer and former Principal Secretary to Arvind Kejriwal. Placed under suspension, after being arrested in a case involving alleged irregular contract awards, he has sought VRS and in a 26 -page letter, indicted the Government and CBI for implicating him in false cases in spite of his honesty and efficiency. He reiterated these charges in his blog, “To Sir with regards”, directed at Najeeb Jung, former Lt Governor, and in “bare-all” interviews to TV news channels and e-portals. According to these revelations his is the first case where a civil servant has been harassed by the CBI to fix a political rival, in this case, his boss, the Delhi Chief Minister. He has gone on to describe it as the rarest of rare instances where a chargesheet has been filed without approval for prosecution from the Competent Authorities. As a recipient of the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in Public Administration and having held many senior positions in Government, he felt the need for people to know that this is not the democracy they expect. The tone and tenor of the outpourings may sound decidedly political. This should not surprise as politics is supposedly one of the options the officer is exploring, going forward. What it does convey emphatically, however, is that he is as much in the perceptions game, unabashedly so, in what may be a trendsetter of sorts. As he deftly puts it, the details of the case, under investigation, are not open for discussion, being sub judice. With the media rallying behind him, if not the Service Association as yet, Kumar appears to have managed his crusade reasonably well.

Ironically ~ and regrettably ~ civil servants within the system, who have voiced concerns about the CBI’s omnipresent negative arc have been largely ignored. Ashwin Lohani, CMD, Air India, is reportedly shocked at the CBI investigation into a Rs 225 crore software procurement of 2011 by his organisation, warning of its damage and debilitating potential. The failed ~ or more appropriately foiled ~ move by the Kerala State IAS Association to go on a mass one-day casual leave to protest the alleged excesses of the State Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, tells the same dismal tale.

the CBI, under the new Director, has its task well cut out. Perceptions matter and they should be top priority. To stay ahead of the curve, it needs to be appreciated that the pitiable image of a caged parrot cannot work in a time of dynamic change when crafting the “new normal” is a ceaseless mega project for the Government. The next two years will be an acid test in establishing institutional eminence and a genuinely bhrastachaar-mukt Bharat.

The writer is a retired IAS officer and comments on governance issues.