Supreme Court suggests limited autonomy for CBI

The Supreme Court suggested granting of limited autonomy to the Central Bureau of Investigation so that it could discharge its statutory obligations without being influenced by anyone. The court has sought the Union government's response.

The court stated it was not in favour of making the prime investigating agency totally autonomous, but would like to evolve a method based on checks and balances so that it could function independently in accordance with the law.

The suggestion was made by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice J S Verma, Justice S P Bharucha and Justice S C Sen while deferring to August 14 further hearing in the multi-million Jain hawala case.

Earlier, Anil Divan, the amicus curiae in the case, told the court that unless appropriate directions were given and proper judicial umbrella and shield offered to CBI officers acting in all cases where powerful politicians were involved, the rule of law would be jeopardised and the public interest would suffer.

He said the CBI's performance in the present proceedings was deficient, and alleged total inaction by the CBI in the case from May 3, 1991 till December 1994, when the apex court began monitoring the investigation.

The court took to task the CBI director, the revenue secretary and top officials of the enforcement directorate for making disclosures ''outside'' and handing over official documents to outsiders in a connected case.

This was a public interest petition by the People's Union for Civil Liberties seeking direction for proper investigation and follow-up action in case of violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act involving a prominent industrialist, it stated.

Pointing towards the officers of the three governmental agencies, Chief Justice Verma said, ''Too many of you are talking too much outside and also carrying documents in your pocket. Why don't you utilise your time in discharging your duties and, in case you find any hindrance, come to us.'' The chief justice cautioned that as officers of investigating agencies they should not be a law unto themselves.

When Attorney General Ashok Desai, appearing for the Union government, said the government was planning some structural changes in the CBI to make it independent, Divan asked whether it meant that the government realised that the present structure was inadequate.

''No one says it is adequate,'' the Chief Justice quipped.

When senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the PUCL, wanted to name the industrialist involved in the FERA violation, the court said it was not interested in individuals and that was why it never issued notices to individuals.

The court asked the petitioner to withdraw its petition and hand over all material it had to the amicus curiae. It said it did not want multiple proceedings going on in the hawala case.