CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation)

Introduction
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is a premier investigating police agency in India. It serves as the
main agency of the Central Government and is responsible for a wide variety of criminal and national security
matters. It was established on April 1, 1963, and draws its power from the Special Police Force (SPE). Later on,
it was brought under the Home Ministry of Government of India.

Being a specialised agency, CBI mainly takes up the responsibility of investigation of crimes related to
corruption by public officials and other economic offences including frauds and scandals. It does not take up
cases of general and routine nature as the Police forces. It acts as a watchdog of the nation mainly dealing
with economic and conventional offences in order to protect national security. CBI is headquartered in New
Delhi.

It is also the nodal police agency in India which coordinates investigation on behalf of Interpol Member
countries. Its conviction rate is as high as 65 to 70% and it is comparable to the best investigation agencies in
the world.

Historical Background
During the period of World War II, a Special Police Establishment (SPE) was constituted in 1941 in the
Department of War of the British India to enquire into allegations of bribery and corruption in the war related
procurements. Later on, it was formalized as an agency of the Government of India to investigate into
allegations of corruption in various wings of the Government of India by enacting the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.

The CBI is not a statutory body but derives its power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946. The establishment of the CBI was recommended by the Santhanam Committee on
Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964).

In 1963, the CBI was established by the Government of India with a view to investigate serious crimes related
to defence of India, corruption in high places, serious fraud, cheating and embezzlement and social crime,
particularly of hoarding, black-marketing and profiteering in essential commodities, having all-India and inter-
state ramifications. With the passage of time, CBI started investigations in conventional crimes like
assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, crimes committed by extremists, etc.

Organization of CBI
CBI is a federal investigation agency, the existing legal division was reconstituted in July 2001, following are
the 7 divisions of CBI at present:-

1. Anti Corruption Division

2. Economic Offences Division
3. Special Crimes Division
4. Directorate of Prosecution.
5. Administration Division
6. Policy & Coordination
7. Central Forensic Science Laboratory

Composition of CBI
1. There shall be a director of CBI who heads the department. The union government shall appoint the
Director based on the recommendation report given by a three-member committee (Prime minister,
leader of the opposition party in Lok Sabha, and CJI of India).
 Note: If there is no recognised leader of the opposition party in the Lok Sabha, then any single leader
of the largest opposition party can be a member of the committee.
1. There shall be joint directors, deputy inspector general, superintendent of police.
2. There shall be a Directorate of Prosecution, whose work will be to look after the cases registered
under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. The Directorate of Prosecution shall not be a person below the
rank of Joint Secretary to the union government.
3. The union government shall also appoint persons for the rank of SP and above to work as
subordinate officers with the Commissioners and Director.

Type of Cases are Handled by the CBI

1. Anti-Corruption Crimes - for investigation of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act against
Public officials and the employees of Central Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations
or Bodies owned or controlled by the Government of India.
2. Economic Crimes - for investigation of major financial scams and serious economic frauds, including
crimes relating to Fake Indian Currency Notes, Bank Frauds and Cyber Crime, bank frauds, Import
Export & Foreign Exchange violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property
and smuggling of other contraband items etc.
3. Special Crimes - for investigation of serious and organized crime under the Indian Penal Code and
other laws on the requests of State Governments or on the orders of the Supreme Court and High
Courts - such as cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the
mafia/the underworld.
4. Suo Moto Cases - CBI can suo-moto take up investigation of offences only in the Union Territories.
• The Central Government can authorize CBI to investigate a crime in a State but only with the
consent of the concerned State Government.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts, however, can order CBI to investigate a crime anywhere
in the country without the consent of the State.

Functions of CBI
The role of CBI is to uphold the spirit of the Constitution and provide a far-sighted vision to the police forces
to act as an agency for the enforcement of laws and prevention of crimes. It acts as the National Central
Bureau of Interpol in India.

The functions of the CBI are as follows:

1. Its main task is to investigate violent crimes through an effective system and high technology.
2. It helps in dealing with and combating cybercrimes and social platform crimes.
3. It is there to help, supervise, and support police organisations in investigating high suspension cases.
4. It investigates cases of corruption, bribery, misconduct, and misbehaviour of union government
employees. It works under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission.
5. It investigates serious crimes committed by high-level criminals affecting national and international
cooperation or national peace.
6. CBI may also take up a case at the State government’s request if the matter relates to public
importance.
Note: Same has happened in the case of Sushant Singh Rajput’s case. The matter has been
transferred to the CBI at the request of the Bihar government. And SC has further directed Mumbai
police to give a status report of the case.
7. It takes up cases on the direction of High Courts and Supreme Court as well. But in case of direction
by the court, consent of the concerned state is not required.
8. The CBI in India acts as an agency or National Central Bureau of the Interpol (an international
organisation that helps police forces of different states to investigate and solve crimes).
 9. But before conducting any investigation or inquiry, the CBI is supposed to take prior permission of the
Central government if the offence is committed by the joint secretary or any person of above rank.

10. Maintaining crime statistics and disseminate criminal information, etc.

Provision of prior information

The CBI is required to seek prior approval of the central government before conducting an investigation into
an offence committed by officers of the rank of joint secretary and higher ranked officers in the central
government. However, on 6th May 2014, the Supreme Court held it as invalid under the prevention of
Corruption Act. A constitutional bench held that section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
which provided protection to Joint Secretary and other higher authorities from facing even a preliminary
inquiry by the CBI in any corruption case was a violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

On 6th May 2014, Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPEA) 1946, which prohibits
investigations without prior approval, was ruled "discriminatory" and "impedes tracking down corrupt senior
bureaucrats" by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice R M Lodha in 2014 in the case of Dr.
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI & Anr-W.P. (Civil) No. 38 of 1997 which changed the course of history
for the Central Bureau of Investigation. A combined decision of two writ petitions, namely, Dr Subramaniam
Swamy v. Director, CBI and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India held Sec 6-A to be violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution on the principle of ‘Equality before Law’. Since Section 6-A came to be
inserted by Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, the constitutional validity of Section
26(c) has also been raised.

Before insertion of Section 6-A in the Act, the requirement to obtain prior approval of the Central
Government was contained in a directive known as “Single Directive” issued by the Government. The Single
Directive was a consolidated set of instructions issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by various
Ministries/Departments regarding modalities of initiating an inquiry or registering a case against certain
categories of civil servants. The Single Directive was quashed by this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union
of India & Anr [(1998) 1 SCC 226)]. In this case the Supreme Court emphasized on the point that the directive
would be applicable if the investigation of the offences was being done by the Central Bureau of Investigation
and would not have any application on the exercise of power by the state police. Subsequent to this
judgement Sec 6-A was inserted by the Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998. In 2003, the Central
Vigilance Commission Act came into existence and as per the Act, a Central Vigilance Commission was
constituted to conduct inquiries into offences alleged to have been committed under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Section 26(c) provides for the insertion of section 6-A into the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946. Sec 6-A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act says that the Delhi Special Police
Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
Therefore, this provision restores the law to what it was before when the Single Directive applied to offences
committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The bench also emphasized that the essence of police investigation is skilful inquiry and collection of material
and evidence in a manner by which the potential culpable individuals are not forewarned. If the CBI is
prevented from conducting a preliminary investigation, a shackle is placed on the CBI's ability to gather
relevant information. As a matter of fact, the CBI won't even be capable of obtaining the material necessary
for a prior approval from the Central Government. Having considered the contentions, it was held that
section6-A is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As a necessary corollary, the provision
contained in Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Act 2003 to that extent is also declared invalid.
Differences between the Central Bureau of Investigation and State Police
Forces
1. CBI is an investigating agency dealing with the investigation of the criminal cases whereas the state
police have to perform numerous other tasks as well.
2. The level of crime investigation work and supervision is much higher in the CBI than what is there In
the state police forces.
3. Unlike the state police, the CBI is not needed to tackle with the general public using force whenever
required.
4. CBI works under the central government and reports to PM while the State police works under the
State government and reports to the Chief Minister of the particular State.
5. The tenure of the CBI director is fixed and he cannot be removed anytime before it unless the
government of India permits but the Chief of State police has no such fixed tenure and can be
removed by State government.

Problems associated with CBI:

1. Political Interference: The Supreme Court of India has criticised the CBI by calling it a "caged parrot
speaking in its master's voice", (Coalfield Allocation Case, 2013) due to excessive political
interference in its functioning.
• It has often been used by the government of the day to cover up wrongdoing, keep coalition
allies in line and political opponents at bay.
2. Delayed Investigations: It has been accused of enormous delays in concluding investigations - For
example, the inertia in its probe against the high dignitaries in Jain hawala diaries case [of the 1990s].
3. Loss of Credibility: Improving the image of the agency is one of the biggest challenges till now as the
agency has been criticised for its mismanagement of several cases involving prominent politicians and
mishandling of several sensitive cases like Bofors scandal, Hawala scandal, Sant Singh Chatwal case,
Bhopal gas tragedy, 2008 Noida double murder case (Aarushi Talwar).
4. Lack of Accountability: CBI is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information Act, thus,
lacking public accountability.
5. Acute shortage of personnel: A major cause of the shortfall is the government's sheer
mismanagement of CBI's workforce, through a system of inefficient, and inexplicably biased,
recruitment policies - used to bring in favoured officers, possibly to the detriment of the organisation.
6. Limited Powers: The powers and jurisdiction of members of the CBI for investigation are subject to
the consent of the State Govt., thus limiting the extent of investigation by CBI.
7. Restricted Access: Prior approval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation on the
employees of the Central Government, of the level of Joint Secretary and above is a big obstacle in
combating corruption at higher levels of bureaucracy.

SC over CBI’s autonomy:

The landmark judgment in Vineet Narain v. Union of India in 1997 laid out several steps to secure the
autonomy of CBI. Says Mr. Narain: “Limited autonomy was granted. Still the administrative and financial
control rests with the Ministry of Personnel, and thus the government can directly control CBI.”

Why was it called caged parrot by the Supreme Court?

1. Politicisation of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)has been a work in progress for years.
2. Corruption and politically biased: This was highlighted in Supreme Court criticism for being a caged
parrot speaking in its master’s voice.
3. CBI has been accused of becoming ‘handmaiden’ to the party in power, as a result high profile cases
are not treated seriously.
 4. Since CBI is run by central police officials on deputation hence chances of getting influenced by
government was visible in the hope of better future postings.

What institutional reforms are needed?

1. Ensure that CBI operates under a formal, modern legal framework that has been written for a
contemporary investigative agency.
2. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) suggested that a new law should be enacted
to govern the working of the CBI.
3. Parliamentary standing committee (2007) recommended that a separate act should be promulgated
in tune with requirement with time to ensure credibility and impartiality.
4. The 19th and 24th reports of the parliamentary standing committees (2007 and 2008) recommended
that the need of the hour is to strengthen the CBI in terms of legal mandate, infrastructure and
resources.
5. It is high time that the CBI is vested with the required legal mandate and is given pan-India
jurisdiction. It must have inherent powers to investigate corruption cases against officers of All India
Services irrespective of the assignments they are holding or the state they are serving in.
6. Besides appointing the head of the CBI through a collegium, as recommended by the Lokpal Act, the
government must ensure financial autonomy for the outfit.
7. It is also possible to consider granting the CBI and other federal investigation agencies the kind of
autonomy that the Comptroller and Auditor General enjoys as he is only accountable to Parliament.
8. A new CBI Act should be promulgated that ensures the autonomy of CBI while at the same time
improving the quality of supervision. The new Act must specify criminal culpability for government
interference.
9. One of the demands that has been before Supreme Court, and in line with international best
practices, is for the CBI to develop its own dedicated cadre of officers who are not bothered about
deputation and abrupt transfers.
10. A more efficient parliamentary oversight over the federal criminal and intelligence agencies could be
a way forward to ensure better accountability, despite concerns regarding political misuse of the
oversight.

Controversies relating to CBI

Two things are very essential for such a specialized agency to work- investigating skills and impartiality. CBI is
said to be not very efficient and is called partial when it comes to dealing with crimes committed by higher
ranked officers or politicians. Here is a look at some controversial things that hit CBI within the years:

• Supreme Court calling CBI a “Caged Parrot”

In the year 2013 Supreme Court called CBI a “caged parrot” as there was clear evidence for the coal
blocks allocation case which hints that the government was using the agency for their own benefits.
Thus, the Supreme Court criticized the agency making the remark and stated that the CBI must know
how to cope up with the government pressure and must know how to take a stand for itself.
• Allegations against Special Director and Director of CBI
P. Singh, former CBI director, was accused of corruption and bribery by the central investigating
agency and was in the headlines because of his links with controversial meat exporter Moin Qureshi.
The former Special Director Rakesh Asthana was also accused of corruption in 2017.
• Bansal family suicide case
Former Director General of foreign affairs B. K. Bansal and his family committed suicide in 2016 and it
was found in their suicide notes that they accused some Central Bureau Investigation officials of
threatening them.
• Ranjit Sinha’s Case
 The then CBI chief Ranjit Sinha was accused of being involved in a corruption case. The Supreme
Court asked CBI special director ML Sharma to look into the case but the investigation against Sinha is
yet to be completed.
• Sohrabuddin Case
CBI was also accused of favouring former ruling party Congress against its opposition BJP. The CBI
during the investigation of Sohrabuddin case in Gujarat pressurised Geeta Johri who was also
investigating the same case to falsely implicate former Gujarat Minister Amit Shah.

In the Advance Insurance Co. Ltd case, 1970, a Constitution Bench held that the definition of “State”,
as contained in The General Clauses Act, includes Union Territories as well.
Hence the CBI, being a force constituted for Union Territories as recognised under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act of 1946, can conduct investigation into the territories of the States only with
their consent.

Central Vigilance Committee (CVC) to oversee the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI)
The Central Vigilance Committee shall be responsible to oversee the functioning of the CBI in order to ensure
its efficient functioning while Government will also be responsible for overviewing the CBI and keeping an eye
on it with respect to its mechanism to ensure impartial working. The CBI needs to inform and report to the
CVC in matters related to its investigation. CVC must know what kind of cases are being taken by CBI for
investigation and how is the progress of the investigation going on.

The CVC is responsible to review the progress of all pending cases moved by the CBI for sanction of
prosecution of public servants, especially those in which sanction has been delayed or refused.

The Central Government shall take all measures necessary to ensure that the CBI functions effectively and
efficiently. The CVC shall have a separate section in its Annual Report on the CBI’s functioning after the
supervisory function is given in the hands of it.