A parliamentary committee has stated that an existing statute governing the federal investigative agency has “many limits” and that there is a need to establish new laws to define its status, activities, and capabilities, citing the withdrawal of general consent for the CBI probe by numerous states.
The federal investigation agency was created in 1963. It is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which was passed in 1941 to govern the operation of the special police establishment established 1941 to investigate accusations of bribery and corruption concerning purchases and supplies during World War II.
According to the department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice, the consent of the state government is required for any investigation by the CBI under the provisions of the DSPE Act, and as of now, nine states have withdrawn general consent.
“The Committee believes that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has significant limits and, as a result, advises that a new statute be enacted to define the CBI’s status, functions, and powers, as well as to lay down safeguards to maintain objectivity and impartiality in its operations,” it added.
The panel stated that vacant positions in the CBI are not being filled at the requisite rate and advised that “every effort should be made to replace vacancies as soon as possible.”
The CBI has 1,709 empty positions out of a total sanctioned strength of 7,295.
“The Committee believes that vacancies in the cadres of executive ranks, law officers, and technical officers will unquestionably raise the pendency of cases, impede the quality of inquiry, and eventually impair the agency’s efficacy and efficiency,” the report stated.
The panel also advised that the CBI Director review progress in filling vacancies on a quarterly basis and take appropriate actions to ensure that the organisation is adequately staffed. When asked about the reasons for the delay in filling vacancies, the CBI told the committee that it is not receiving enough nominations from Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and state police, which have traditionally been a major source of induction, particularly up to the rank of inspector in the organisation.
“The CBI also stated that CAPFs and state police are under increased pressure within their respective jurisdictions and have highlighted difficulty in sparing officers and employees to the same amount as in the past,” according to the report.
In earlier reports, the Committee advised that the CBI lessen its reliance on deputationists and endeavour to attract permanent staff in the levels of inspector of police and constable of police.
“However, the CBI demonstrated reluctance and justified its position by claiming that deputationists bring fresh ideas, novel methods, and diverse skill sets with them, and that direct recruitment at higher levels would have an impact on career progression,” it stated.
The Committee stated that it fully agrees with the CBI’s viewpoint that deputationists assist the organisation with their knowledge and skill sets, but believes that an organisation should restrict deputation recruiting to a minimal.
It stated that the information of cases registered with the CBI, the progress made in their investigation, and the final outcome are not available in the public realm and requested that the agency make the details available in the public domain to the greatest extent practicable.
The committee also noted that the CBI’s annual report is not available to the general public.
“The committee believes that in this age of openness, every public entity should aim to proactively release the data available to it or held by it in the public domain to the extent practicable,” according to a report recently filed in Parliament.
It stated that providing citizens with access to information will not only empower them, but will also make the CBI more accountable, responsible, efficient, and transparent in its operations.
As a result, the committee advised CBI to provide case statistics and annual reports on its website.
The panel also restated its proposal that the CBI maintain a case management system, which would be a centralised database collecting information about cases that had been recorded with it and the progress made in their disposition.
“The case management system should also allow tracking of the status of each individual case and should be generally accessible to the general public,” according to the paper.
