CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

Central Vigilance Commission - Indian Polity Notes

The Indian government introduced Central Vigilance Commission in the year 1964. The commission was set up on the recommendation of K.Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. It was originally introduced through an executive resolution. The Central Vigilance Committee’s role is to advise and guide Central Government in the field of surveillance.

The topic ‘Central Vigilance Commission’ is important for IAS Exam as it forms an important part of Political Science subject for prelims, mains GS-II, and optional papers.

Table of Contents:

What is the Central Vigilance Commission?

How many members are there in Central Vigilance Commission?

Can Central Vigilance Members be removed?

The Organisation of Central Vigilance Commission

What is the work of the Central Vigilance Commission?

Jurisdiction of Central Vigilance Commission

Vigilance Awareness Week

The Whistleblowers Protection Act

What is the Central Vigilance Commission?

It is an agency constituted to curb corruption in offices of the Indian government. Complaints from whistleblowers (an employee of the firm/public office informing the public about frauds/wrongdoings in the office) under ‘Whistleblower Resolution’ are received by CVC after which the commission can take actions on motivated acts.

CVC is called the apex vigilance institution. It is free of control from any executive authority. Its role is to monitor all vigilance activity under the Central Government and advising various authorities in Central Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance work.

Facts about Central Vigilance Commission for UPSC:

• Since 25 August 1998, CVC is a multi-member commission having a statutory status.
• Central Vigilance Act came into effect in the year 2003 after CVC bill was passed by both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
• First Chief Vigilance Commissioner of India was Nittoor Srinivasa Rau.
• Since 2004, the commission receives complaints under Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers’ Resolution” (PIDPI), also called Whistleblowers’ Resolution.

It is important for IAS aspirants to know about facts related to CVC as they are important for UPSC Mains and interview too.

How many members are there in Central Vigilance Commission?

CVC has three members:

1. Central Vigilance Commissioner
2. Two Vigilance Commissioner (Maximum number of commissioners is 2)

Facts about CVC Members:

• President of India appoints CVC members by warrant under his hand and seal
• The President’s appointment comes after the recommendation by a three-member committee:

1. Prime Minister
2. Minister of Home Affairs (MHA)
3. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha

• Term of Office: Four years or if they attain 65 years of age (whichever is earlier)
• After they retire, they are not eligible for reappointment in any central or state government agency.

Can Central Vigilance Members be removed?

Yes, the CVC members can be removed in the following circumstances:

Removal of CVC Members

If the member is adjudged as an insolvent

If the Central government holds him responsible for an offence involving moral turpitude/ or he is convicted for such an offence

If he becomes a part of office of profit

If he is declared unfit by reason of infirmity of mind or body, by the President

If he is found interested in financially driven activities or other such interests which can likely affect prejudicially his official functions

Note: CVC members can also be removed by the President on the grounds of proved misbehaviour. However, the Supreme Court is referred by President only after which CVC member can be removed.

The Organisation of Central Vigilance Commission

There are three departments under the commission, given in the table below:

Organisation of Central Vigilance Commission
Secretariat	Chief Technical Examiners’ (CTE) wing	Wing of Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDIs)
Secretary Joint Secretary Deputy Secretary Under-Secretary Office Staff	It is the technical wing, having: Chief Engineers Supporting Engineers	Inquiry Officers

What is the work of the Central Vigilance Commission?

The following are the works of CVC members:

• They inquire or investigate whenever a public servant (Central Government employee) commits an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• They inquire or investigate against following officials who commit an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  • Members of all-India services4 serving in the Union and Group ‘A’ officers of the Central government
  • Specified level of officers of the authorities of the Central government
• They superintend the functioning of Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in cases related to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• They direct Delhi Special Police Establishment in investigative cases related to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• They review the progress of investigations conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in cases related Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• They review the progress of those applications that are pending with competent authorities for sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Central Government and its authorities are advised on matters as they refer to CVC members
• They also superintend vigilance departments of government ministries
• They undertake or cause an inquiry into complaints received under Whistleblower Resolution and recommend appropriate action.
• Whenever the central government makes rules and regulations governing the vigilance and disciplinary matters relating to members of Central Services and All-India Services, CVC is consulted.
• CVC members are part of the selection committee which is responsible to recommend appointment of Director of Enforcement (ED.)
• CVC is a part of the selection committee that recommends officers for appointments to the posts above the level of Deputy Director of Enforcement.
• The Commissions acts as an authority to receive information that is related to suspicious transactions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
• It recommends to Central Government for the appointment of Director of Prosecution in CBI
• CVC members are part of a selection committee that is responsible to recommend appointment of officers to the posts of the level of SP and above in the CBI except for Director of CBI
• Lokpal refers complaints to CVC who initiate a preliminary inquiry in respect of officers and officials of Groups A, B, C & D

Jurisdiction of Central Vigilance Commission

CVC can extend its jurisdiction to the following:

Jurisdiction of Central Vigilance Commission

Union Government Officers/ Group A officers of All India Services

Public Sector Bank Officers of the rank of Scale V and above

RBI, NABARD and SIDBI officers in Grade D and above

PSUs officers in Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ and also its Chief Executives and Executives on board

General Insurance Companies’ officers in position of managers and above

Life Insurance Companies’ officers having designation of Senior Divisional Managers and above

Officers drawing a salary of `8700/- per month (pre-revised) and above on Central Government D.A. pattern, as may be revised from time to time, in societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government

Vigilance Awareness Week

This awareness week is observed by the Central Vigilance Commission every year in the month of October. The week includes Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s birth anniversary which is on October 31.

The motive of Vigilance Awareness Week is to:

• Take an Integrity Pledge by all government ministries and organisations
• Spread the words on prevention of corruption across the nation
• Conduct workshops and campaigns for government employees and other stakeholders on policies/procedures of the organization and preventive vigilance measures
• Establish Integrity Clubs in schools and colleges
• Aware Gram Sabhas to sensitize the rural citizens about the ill-effects of corruption

Note: Central Vigilance Week 2019 is going to take place from October 28, 2019, to November 2, 2019. The theme of this year is: “Integrity – A way of life.”

The Whistleblowers Protection Act

The Act came on the heels of “The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010” in the Lok Sabha on August 26, 2010. The Bill as passed by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 21st February 2014 and received the assent of the President on May 9, 2014. 

The act has provided mechanisms to secure the identity of public employees who expose corruption in government ministries and departments. It also aids the intention to expose corruption by public servants, including ministers.

Facts related to the Whistleblowers Protection Act:

• There is a penalty of imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of Rs. 30000 or both, in cases related to false charges
• The Act is not applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the armed forces and the Special Protection Group mandated to provide security to the Prime Minister and former prime ministers, among others

CBI Autonomy and CVC

CBI Autonomy and CVC- Issues in News

CBI Autonomy and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is a much-debated topic today. In this issue of IIN, we discuss this issue. This topic is regularly seen in the news and hence, is important for the UPSC exam. Read our Issues in News segment for insights into topics that make headlines and are important for the IAS exam.

Why in news?

The present crisis started, when the central government divested the powers of the CBI director Alok Verma and appointed Nageshwar Rao to take over as interim chief of CBI.

The Supreme Court ordered Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to complete its ongoing inquiry against exiled CBI Director Alok Verma so that the CBI’s reputation is not at stake. The CVC inquiry will be conducted under the supervision of Former Apex Court judge, Justice A.K.Patnaik.

About CBI

The CBI was established as the Special Police Establishment in 1941, to enquire into cases of corruption in the procurement during the Second World War.

With time the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption recommends the establishment of CBI. The CBI was then established by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of Personnel eventually took over the responsibility of CBI and now it plays the role of an attached office.

The CBI is the premier investigating agency of the Central Government.  It is not a statutory body; it derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

The important role of CBI is prevention of corruption and maintaining integrity in administration. It works under the overall supervision of Central Vigilance Commission in matters related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The CVC act provides for a security of two year tenure in office for CBI Director.  The CVC Act also provides the mechanism for the selection of the Director of CBI and other officers of the rank of SP and above in the CBI.

Central government appoints The CBI director based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson, the Vigilance Commissioners, the Secretary to the Government of India in-charge of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary (Coordination and Public Grievances) in the Cabinet Secretariat.

Section 4B(2) of the DSPE Act lays down guidelines for removal of CBI Director, which mandates that the CBI Director cannot be “transferred” without the previous consent of a high-power committee chaired by the Prime Minister.

All the major crimes in the country having National and International ramifications will be investigated by CBI. It is also involved in collection of criminal intelligence pertaining to three of its main areas of operation, viz., Special Crimes, Economic Crimes and Anti-Corruption

The following broad categories of criminal cases are handled by the CBI:

1. Cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all Central Govt. Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions.
2. Economic crimes, including bank frauds, financial frauds, Import Export & Foreign Exchange violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and smuggling of other contraband items etc.
3. Special Crimes, such as cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides, kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/the underworld.

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

In 1964 CVC was established with the aim of addressing corrupt practices within the government.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) works in coordination with the government authorities for the betterment of the system.

It must be noted that Central Vigilance Commission is not an investigating agency. It operates in coalition with the Departmental Chief Vigilance Officers or CBI. Investigating Civil Works of the government through the Chief Technical Officer is the only search that Central Vigilance Commission conducts.

All the investigations into corruption cases against government officials has to be approved by the government. The Central Vigilance Commission also publishes list of corrupt officials and recommends punitive action against them.

Functions and powers of Central Vigilance Commission

• To exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) with respect to investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; or offence under CRPC for certain categories of public servants and to give directions to the DSPE for purpose of discharging this responsibility;
• To review the progress of investigations conducted by the DSPE into offences alleged to have been committed under the PC Act;
• To undertake an inquiry or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any transaction in which a public servant working in any organisation, to which the executive control of the Government of India extends, is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt manner;
• To tender independent and impartial advice to the disciplinary and other authorities in disciplinary cases, involving vigilance angle at different stages i.e. investigation, inquiry, appeal, review etc.;
• To exercise a general check and supervision over vigilance and anti-corruption work in Ministries or Departments of the Govt. of India and other organisations to which the executive power of the Union extends; and
• To chair the Committee for selection of Director (CBI), Director (Enforcement Directorate) and officers of the level of SP and above in DSPE.
• To undertake or cause an inquiry into complaints received under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer and recommend appropriate action.

Problems associated with CBI:

• The agency is dependent on the home ministry for staffing, since many of its investigators come from the Indian Police Service. The agency depends on the law ministry for lawyers and also lacks functional autonomy to some extent.
• The CBI, run by IPS officers on deputation, is also susceptible to the government’s ability to manipulate the senior officers, because they are dependent on the Central government for future postings.
• Since police is a State subject under the Constitution, and the CBI acts as per the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which makes it a police agency, the CBI needs the consent of the State government in question before it can make its presence in that State. This can lead to certain cases not being investigated and seeing a silent deadlock.
• CBI which handles cases which are of national importance has been criticised for its mishandling of several scams due to political pressure. It has also been criticized for interfering in the investigation of prominent politicians, such as P. V. Narasimha Rao, Jayalalithaa, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav; this tactic leads to their acquittal or non-prosecution. Some of the examples in which CBI was misused are Bofors scandal, Hawala scandal, 2G spectrum scam, coal scam, etc.

CBI Autonomy

In the Coalgate scam case the SC raised the question of CBI’s independence and said that “The CBI has become the state’s parrot. Only screaming, repeating the master’s voice” The SC had then asked the Centre to make the CBI impartial and said it needs to be ensured that the CBI functions free of all external pressures.

SC over CBI’s autonomy: In the Vineet Narain case, 1997 The Supreme Court agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption.  It laid down guidelines to ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), an independent governmental agency intended to be free from executive control or interference. 

The Supreme Court gave following directions:

1. The CVC should be given statutory status and be entrusted with responsibility to supervise the work of the CBI ensuring its efficiency and impartiality;
2. Its head be selected by a team of the prime minister, home minister and leader of the opposition in Parliament from a panel of eminent people and the CBI director be appointed for a minimum tenure of two years by a committee headed by the CVC including the union home secretary and the secretary, personnel;
3. A report on the activities of the CBI be submitted in three months;
4. A nodal agency be set up for dealing with the emerging political-criminal-bureaucratic nexus;
5. A directorate of prosecution be set up

Except for giving CVC a statutory status Government has taken less interest in implementing the other recommendations.

Financial independence

Financial independence is key for functioning of any organisation. So the government has given CBI Director the rank of a Government Secretary with more financial autonomy. The director of CBI would be able to make expenditure upto Rs 15crore while the amount was very negligible previously.  It would be able to employ private consultants and also make advance payments up to 80% of the full disbursement to a government agency without running to the administrative ministry. So with increased money for its disposal the agency need not have to depend on approvals. However the full autonomy that CBI requested for is not sanctioned by the Government.

CBI and RTI

CBI is placed in the second schedule section 24 of RTI act. Sec 24 states that ‘act not to apply to certain organizations’. It provides exception to obtaining information from intelligence and security organisations specified in the second schedule to the RTI act or any information furnished by them to the government. We have discussed this issue in an RSTV article, please click below for more.

 International ramification

Central Bureau of Investigation is the representative of this country for the purposes of correspondence with the INTERPOL. To deal with this work, a Wing designated as “Interpol Wing” has been created in the Co-ordination Division of the Central Bureau of Investigation. All the State Police forces and other law enforcement agencies in India have a link through Interpol New Delhi to their counterparts in other member countries. So any attempt to dilute the power of CBI will have serious International ramifications as its stature and Prestige would also be under question due to its strong political and corruption tag attached to it.

What needs to be done?

• The first measure is to make sure that CBI operates under a formal, legal framework in the lines of contemporary investigative agencies. In order to ensure autonomy of CBI a new CBI Act should be promulgated giving it a statutory backing.
• The Lokpal Act prescribes for a three-member committee comprising of the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and the chief justice of the Supreme Court to select the director. Even after Lokpal act political interference has been the main hurdle in the working of the CBI. In order to rectify, a new Act should be promulgated and it must specify criminal culpability for government interference.
• CBI should develop its own dedicated cadre of officers who are not bothered about deputation and abrupt transfers. But all senior posts in the CBI are now held by Indian Police Service (IPS) officers.
• Along the lines of Comptroller and Auditor General, CBI should be made to be accountable to Parliament. A more efficient parliamentary oversight over the CBI could be a way forward to ensure better accountability, despite concerns regarding political misuse of the oversight.
• The CBI should recruit its officers along the lines of UPSC exam. This makes a case for a fresh look at the service conditions for direct recruitment to the CBI.

Conclusion:

L.P. Singh Committee in 1978 and a Parliamentary standing committee in 2008 recommended the “enactment of a comprehensive central legislation to remedy the issue of autonomy. Government has to take in to consideration these recommendations.

A  Parliamentary law for the autonomy, powers, etc. is the first step towards improving the CBI’s autonomy.

CBI is an agency of Central Government, it was formed with a dual responsibility to investigate grievous cases and provide leadership and direction in fighting corruption to the Police force across the country.

Agencies like CIA and FBI in USA are run exceptionally well by the government with a great autonomy so the goal of reforms should be to make CBI more autonomous in nature like CIA and FBI. Greater Political will is required to achieve it which should also keep in mind that it will not deprive them of accountability.

Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)

Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) [UPSC Notes for GS II]

This article will describe details about the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI).

These UPSC Notes on the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) in India are aligned with the UPSC Syllabus and aspirants should prepare this topic for General Studies Paper II.

The Central Bureau of Investigation is India’s chief investigating agency and is frequently seen in the news; hence its relevance for the IAS Mains.

IAS Exam aspirants can find more notes for UPSC Mains General Studies topics from the links given at the end of the article.

Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)

Topic: Ministries and Departments of the Government

CBI –  Formation and establishment, functioning, issues related to its autonomy and need for consent in investigations. And recent internal feud.

About CBI:

• The CBI was established as the Special Police Establishment in 1941, to enquire into cases of corruption in the procurement during the Second World War.
• Later, the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption recommended the establishment of the CBI. The CBI was then formed by a resolution of the Home Affairs Ministry. The Ministry of Personnel later on, took over the responsibility of the CBI and now it plays the role of an attached office.

Functions of CBI:

• The CBI is the main investigating agency of the GOI. It is not a statutory body; it derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 
• Its important role is to prevent corruption and maintain integrity in administration. It works under the supervision of the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) in matters pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• Investigate cases connected to infringement of economic and fiscal laws, i.e., breach of laws concerning customs and central excise, export and import control, income tax, foreign exchange regulations, etc. But cases of this nature are taken up by the CBI either at the request of the department concerned or in consultation with the concerned department.
• Investigate crimes of a serious nature, that have national and international ramifications, and committed by professional criminals or organised gangs.
• To coordinate the activities of the various state police forces and anti-corruption agencies.
• At the behest of a state govt., the CBI can also take up any case of public importance and investigate it.
• Maintaining crime statistics and disseminating criminal information.
• The CBI is India’s representative for correspondence with the INTERPOL. 

Problems associated with CBI:

• The agency is dependent on the home ministry for staffing, since many of its investigators come from the Indian Police Service. The CBI also relies on the ministry of law for lawyers and also doesn’t have functional autonomy to some extent. 
• The CBI, run by IPS officers on deputation, is also vulnerable to the government’s ability to manipulate the senior officers, because they are dependent on the Central government for future postings. 
• Since police is a State subject under the Constitution, and the CBI acts as per the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which makes it a police agency, the CBI needs the consent of the State government in question before it can make its presence in that State.This can lead to certain cases not being investigated and seeing a silent deadlock. Recently, states like Andhra Pradesh (consent again given after change of government in state) and West Bengal withdrawn consent. 
• CBI which investigates cases of national importance has been censured for its mishandling of several scams owing to political pressure. It has also been denounced for interfering in the investigation of prominent politicians, such as Jayalalithaa, P. V. Narasimha Rao, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati; this tactic leads to their acquittal or non-prosecution. Some of the examples in which CBI was misused are the Hawala scandal, Bofors scandal, 2G spectrum scam, coal scam and so on.

List of CBI Directors of India

CBI Directors	Tenure
D. P. Kohli	1 April 1963 – 31 May 1968
F. V. Arul	31 May 1968 – 6 May 1971
D. Sen	6 May 1971 – 29 March 1977
S. N. Mathur	29 March 1977 – 2 May 1977
C. V. Narsimhan	2 May 1977- 25 November 1977
John Lobo	25 November 1977 – 30 June 1979
R. D. Singh	30 June 1979 – 24 January 1980
J. S. Bajwa	24 January 1980 – 28 February 1985
M. G. Katre	28 February 1985 – 31 October 1989
A. P. Mukherjee	31 October 1989 – 11 January 1990
R. Sekhar	11 January 1990 – 14 February 1990
S. K. Datta	14 February 1990 – 31 July 1993
K. V. R. Rao	31 July 1993 – 31 July 1996
Joginder Singh	31 July 1996 – 30 June 1997
R. C. Sharma	30 June 1997 – 31 January 1998
D. R. Karthikeyan (acting)	31 January 1998 – 31 March 1998
T. N. Mishra (acting)	31 March 1998 – 4 January 1999
R. K. Raghavan	4 January 1999 – 1 April 2001
P. C. Sharma	1 April 2001 – 6 December 2003
U. S. Misra	6 December 2003 – 6 December 2005
Vijay Shanker Tiwari	12 December 2005 – 31 July 2008
Ashwani Kumar	2 August 2008 – 30 November 2010
A. P. Singh	30 November 2010 – 30 November 2012
Ranjit Sinha	3 December 2012 – 2 December 2014
Anil Sinha	3 December 2014 – 2 December 2016
Rakesh Asthana (Special Director)	3 December 2016 – 31 January 2017
Raaz P	1 February 2017 – 10 January 2019
M. Nageshwar Rao (interim)	24 October 2018 – 1 February 2019
Rishi Kumar Shukla	2 February 2019 – Present (in-charge)

Financial independence

Financial independence is vital for functioning of any organisation.

• Issues:

• • CBI and RTI
    • CBI is placed in the 2nd Schedule, Section 24 of the Right To Information Act. Sec 24 states, ‘act not to apply to certain organizations’. It provides an exception to obtaining information from intelligence and security organisations specified in the second schedule to the RTI act or any information furnished by them to the government. 
    • The CBI was not one of the organizations included in the exempted category. It was much later in 2012 that the CBI was brought in. There was a purpose as to why the CBI was not brought into the ambit of the RTI- this was because the CBI was not considered to be one of those organizations which really looks into the strategic interests of India. 
    • Section 8 of the RTI Act, which guarantees various forms of exemption, begins by saying that all the information which has a strategic significance should not be disclosed. Further, since the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Research & Analysis Wing or RAW and such organizations which gather intelligence, are dealing with strategic matters and so they were from the very beginning kept in the exempted category. 
    • The CBI was never considered to be one which collects or maintains such information which are of strategic importance for the country.
    • However, the CBI made out a case that they are also investigating into all kinds of cases- and that these cases include those which are of strategic importance for India and therefore, if they would be subjected to the RTI, much of that information would go out into the public domain. The then government had agreed to this. 
    • So CBI can still be brought under the RTI with all the exemptions already protecting its important information.

Issue of Consent:

• Since police is a State subject under the Constitution, and the CBI acts as per the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which makes it a police agency, the CBI needs the consent of the State government in question before it can make its presence in that State.This can lead to certain cases not being investigated and seeing a silent deadlock. Recently, states like Andhra Pradesh (consent again given after change of government in state) and West Bengal withdrawn consent. 
• There are two kinds of consent:
  • case-specific and general– Given that the CBI has jurisdiction only over central government departments and employees, it can investigate a case involving state government employees or a violent crime in a given state only after that particular state government gives its consent. 
  • “General consent” is in general, provided to aid the CBI easily perform its investigation into cases of corruption against central government employees in the concerned state. Almost all states have given such consent. Or else, the bureau would need consent in all cases. 
• As per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,1946, the state governments can withdraw the general consent accorded.
• The CBI would still have the authority to probe old cases registered when general consent existed. Also, cases registered elsewhere in India, but involving people stationed in states which have withdrawn consent, would allow CBI’s jurisdiction to extend to these states as well. 
• Withdrawal of consent will only bar the CBI from registering a case within the jurisdiction of states which have withdrawn consent. But, the CBI could still file cases in Delhi and continue to investigate people inside such states.

CBI VS. STATE POLICE

• Kolkata Police detained a team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials

The role of the (SPE) Special Police Establishment (which is a division of CBI) is supplementary to that of the state police forces. under the Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, together with state police forces, the SPE enjoys the concurrent powers of investigation and prosecution for offences. However, to avoid duplication and overlapping of cases between these two agencies, the following administrative arrangements have been made:

• The SPE shall take up those cases which are fundamentally and substantially concerned with the Central Government’s affairs or employees, even if they also involve certain state government employees. 
• The police force of the state shall take up such cases which are substantially concerned with the state government’s affairs or employees, even if they also involve certain Central Government employees. 
• The SPE shall also take up cases against public undertakings or statutory bodies employees established and financed by the Central Government. 

CBI Autonomy

In the infamous Coalgate scam case, the Supreme Court raised the question of the bureau’s independence and said that “The CBI has become the state’s parrot. Only screaming, repeating the master’s voice” The SC had then asked the Centre to make the CBI impartial and said it needs to be ensured that the CBI functions free of all external pressures.

Why called “caged parrot”?

• Increasing government interference like transfer, postings. 
• suo motu cognizance not allowed. 
• Barred from prosecuting high officials without prior permission e.g. Jain Hawala Case. 
• Under supervision of CVC, which is further controlled by the government? 
• Issue of consent 
• Financial autonomy

SC over CBI’s autonomy: In the Vineet Narain case, 1997 The Supreme Court agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption. It laid down guidelines to make sure of the independence and autonomy of the CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which is an independent governmental body intended to be free from executive control or interference.

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. The CVC should be given statutory status and given the responsibility to supervise the work of the CBI ensuring its efficiency and impartiality; 
2. Its head should be selected by a team of the prime minister, the home minister and leader of the opposition in Parliament from a panel of eminent people and the CBI director be appointed for a minimum tenure of 2 years by a committee which would be headed by the CVC including the union home secretary and the secretary, personnel; 
3. A report on the CBI’s activities be submitted in 3 months. 
4. A nodal agency be established for dealing with the emerging political-criminal-bureaucratic nexus; 
5. A directorate of prosecution be set up. 

The Government Of India has shown little interest in implementing many of these recommendations.

What needs to be done?

• The first measure is to ensure that the Bureau functions under a formal and legal framework in the lines of contemporary investigative agencies. To safeguard the autonomy of CBI, a new act such as the CBI Act should be promulgated which would give it a statutory backing. 
• The Lokpal Act recommends a 3-member committee comprising of the PM, the leader of the opposition and the chief justice of the SC to select the director. Even after Lokpal act political interference has been the main hurdle in the working of the CBI. In order to resolve this, a new Act should be promulgated and it must specify criminal culpability for government interference. 
• CBI should develop its own dedicated cadre of officers who are not bothered about deputation and abrupt transfers. But all senior posts in the bureau are now held by IPS officers. 
• Along the lines of CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General), CBI should be made to be accountable to the Parliament. A more effective parliamentary oversight over the CBI could be a way forward to ensure better accountability, notwithstanding concerns about political misuse of the oversight. 
• The CBI recruitment should be done on the lines of UPSC exam. This warrants a fresh look at the service conditions for direct recruitment to the Central Bureau of Investigation. 

Way forward:

• L.P. Singh Committee (1978) and a Parliamentary standing committee (2008) recommended the “enactment of a comprehensive central legislation to remedy the issue of autonomy. Government has to take into consideration these recommendations. 
• A Parliamentary law for the autonomy, powers, etc. is the first step towards improving the CBI’s autonomy. 
• CBI is an agency of the Central Government, it was formed with a dual responsibility to investigate grievous cases and provide leadership and direction in fighting corruption to the Police force across the country. 
• Agencies like the CIA and FBI in USA are run exceptionally well by the government with a great autonomy so the goal of reforms should be to make CBI more autonomous in nature like the CIA and FBI. More political will is needed to attain it which should also keep in mind that it will not dispossess them of accountability.

Different Commissions and their Recommendations

1. Sarkaria Commission

The agitation for State autonomy led to the creation of Sarkaria Commission by the Central Government to recommend changes in Centre-State relationship. The Commission submitted its report in 1988. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution were deeply concerned about ensuring the unity and integrity of the country. They were aware of the forces of disruption and disunity working within the country. These dangers at the time of independence could be handled only by a strong government at the Centre. Therefore, the framers of the Constitution assigned a predominant role to the Centre. At the same time they made provisions for the establishment of a co-operative federalism. The working of the Indian federation during the last five decades clearly shows that the relations between the Centre and the States have not always been cordial. The administrative Reforms Commission and several other Commissions were appointed by the Government of India from time to time to regulate Centre State relations. The Union Government appointed Sarkaria Commission to suggest ways and means to improve Centre-State relations. The clamour for more autonomy led to the constitution of Sarkaria Commission in 1983 which was asked to examine and review existing arrangements between the Centres and the States in all spheres and recommend appropriate changes and measures. An extraordinary situation, the need to defeat the emergency regime of Indira Gandhi, brought them together. With the return of the Congress party under Indira Gandhi’s leadership with secure majority, the movements for state autonomy slowly receded in the background. At the present moment, there is no movement for state autonomy like earlier even though the struggle to get more financial resources for the state continues. In 1990 a visible change came in the correlation of forces active in the Indian politics. Major Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission The Sarkaria Commission finally submitted its report in the year 1988. The Sarkaria Commission’s charter was to examine the relationship and balance of power between state and central governments in the country and suggest changes within the framework of Constitution of India. In spite of the large size of its reports – the Commission recommended, by and large, status quo in the Centre-State relations, especially in the areas, relating to legislative matters, role of Governors and use of Article 356.

ROLE OF GOVERNOR

Issue of Appointment of Governor	Issue of Appointment of Governor
On the issue of appointment of the Governors, it made some important recommendations as given in the following:	As far as possible, the governor should enjoy the term of five years.
The Governor should be eminent in some walk of life and from outside the state. He should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in recent past. Besides, he should not be a member of the ruling party.	He should be removed before his tenure only on the grounds as mentioned in the constitu¬tion or if aspersions are cast on his morality, dignity, constitutional propriety, etc.
He should be appointed after effective consultations with the state Chief Minister and Vice President and Speaker of the Lok Sabha should be consulted by the PM before his selection.	In the process of removal, state government may be informed and consulted.

Regarding use of Article 356: The Sarkaria Commission made the following recommendations:

• This article should be used very sparingly and as a matter of last resort. It can be invoked only in the event of political crisis, internal subversion, physical breakdown and non¬compliance with the constitutional directives of the centre.
• Before that, a warning should be issued to the errant state in specific terms and alternate course of action must be explored before invoking it.
• The material fact and grounds on the basis of which this article is invoked should be made an integral part of the Proclamation; it will ensure effective Parliamentary control over the invocation of the President Rule.
• The Governor’s report must be a ‘speaking document’ and it should be given wide publicity.
• So the Sarkaria Commission was an important attempt to streamline the centre-state rela¬tions.
• It has become a reference point for any discussion on centre-state relations and it has been frequently referred to even by the judiciary.
• On its recommendation, the Inter-State council was established in 1990 and it has considered its recommendations.
• However, many of its important recommendations have not been implemented and tensions in federal relations are a recurrent feature.

Relating to Legislative Matters

While it made the general observation that the Constitution is basically sound and there is no need for drastic changes in the basic character of the Constitution, nevertheless it gave following recommendations: (1) Ordinarily, the Union should occupy only that much field of a concurrent subject on which uniformity of Policy and Action is required in the larger interest of the Nation, leaving the rest of the details for State action, within the abroad frame-work of the Policy laid down in the Union Law. (2) Whenever, the Union proposes to undertake Legislation on a subject belonging to the Concurrent List, the States’ views must be ascertained through inter-Governmental Councils. (3) Parliamentary law passed under clauses (1) of Article 252, on request of two or more States should not be perpetual but should be for specific period not exceeding three years. (4) On receipt of a resolution from a State recommending creation or abolition of a Legislative Council, the same will be presented before the Parliament within a reasonable time.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS COMMISSION (1969) The Administrative Reforms Commission (1969) made 22 recommendations to improve Centre-State relations. It ruled out any constitutional amendment and considered the existing provisions as sufficient to regulate federal tensions. The important recommendations are given out of 22 recommendations in the following:

• Establishment of an Inter-state Council under Article 263 of the constitution
• Delegation of powers to the maximum extent to the states
• Augmenting financial resources of the states through fiscal transfers from the centre
• Appointment of non-partisan persons having long experience in public life and adminis¬tration as Governor of a state.

Other Recommendations

• It made the strong suggestion that Article 370 was not a transitory provision. This appears to have been made specifically in response to “one all-India political party” that demanded the deletion of Article 370 “in the interests of national integration.
• It recommended that the residuary powers of legislation in regard to taxation matters should remain exclusively in the competence of Parliament while the residuary field other than that of taxation should be placed on the concurrent list.
• That the enforcement of Union laws, particularly those relating to the concurrent sphere, is secured through the machinery of the states.
• To ensure uniformity on the basic issues of national policy, with respect to the subject of a proposed legislation, consultations may be carried out with the state governments individually and collectively at the forum of the proposed Inter-Governmental Council. It was not recommended that the consultation be a constitutional obligation.
• Ordinarily, the Union should occupy only that much field of a concurrent subject on which uniformity of policy and action is essential in the larger interest of the nation, leaving the rest and details for state action.
• On administrative relations, Sarkaria made some observation: “Federalism is more a functional arrangement for cooperative action, than a static institutional concept.
• Article 258 (power of the Union to confer powers etc on states in certain cases) provides a tool by the liberal use of which cooperative federalism can be substantially realised in the working of the system.
• A more generous use of this tool should be made than has hitherto been done, for progressive decentralization of powers to the governments of the states.
• The Commission strongly recommended the establishment of permanent Inter-State Council.
• In addition, it desired that both the Centre and the States should have the concern for the development of backward territory or areas.
• If the economic development of these backward regions are undertaken in a planned manner, the separatist tendencies will be automatically controlled.
• Differences between the Union and the States should be resolved by mutual consultation.
• It has taken a favourable view on the demand of the States to provide more financial resources at their disposal.
• In order to improve Centre-State relations in the country, it has suggested economic liberalization and suitable amendments to the Constitution.

2. Rajmannar Commission, 1969

In 1969, the Tamil Nadu government appointed Rajmannar Commission to look into this aspect and it submitted its report in 1971. It demanded readjustment of the VII schedule and residuary power to the states. Its other important recommendations are given in the following:

• Setting of an Inter-State council immediately
• Finance commission to be made a permanent body
• Deletion of Articles 356, 357 and 365 which dealt with the President’s rule
• Abolition of All-India Services (lAS, IPS and IFS)
• Planning Commission to be replaced by a statutory body
• The Central government completely ignored its recommendations.

3. Anandpur Sahib Resolution, 1973

In 1978, the Akali Dal came out with a controversial resolution called the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. It demanded greater autonomy for the States seeking Centre’s authority to be confined to only Defence, Foreign relation, Communications, Railways and Currency. It also demanded residuary powers for the State. In the decade of 1980, as the regional parties became very assertive, they put-forth the demand for State autonomy in an organized manner. Their ‘conclaves’ were held at Vijaywada, Delhi and Srinagar which raised the demand for redefining the Centre-States relations. Here also the Central government did not accept these recommendations. In 1973, the Akali Dal adopted Anandpur Sahib resolution which demanded the restriction of the centre’s jurisdiction to only defence, foreign affairs, communications and currency and vesting of residuary powers in the states. It also called for equal authority and representation of the states at the Centre. In December 1977, the Communist government in West Bengal published a memorandum called the West Bengal memorandum which made the following recommendations:

• The word ‘union’ in the constitution should be replaced by the word ‘federal’
• The centre’s jurisdiction to be restricted to only defence, foreign affairs, communications and economic coordination
• Deletion of articles 356, 357 and 360
• Rajya Sabha to have equal powers with that of the Lok Sabha
• Abolition of All-India services
• 75 per cent of the revenue raised by the centre should be allocated to the states

NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION (NCRWC) The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) too put forth its suggestions, many of which were a reiteration of Sarkaria Commission recommendations. Some of the novel recommendations are enumerated in the following:

• A statutory body called Inter-State Trade and Commerce Commission should be estab¬lished as given under Article 307.
• The Governor should be appointed by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chief Minister of the state concerned.
• Management of disasters and emergencies should be included in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
• In case of a political breakdown in a state, before invoking Article 356, as far as practicable, the state should be given an opportunity to explain its position and redress the situation.
• The Inter-State Council order of 1990 should clearly specify the matters that should form part of the consultations.

4. Punchi Commission in 2007

The Central government constituted the Punchi Commission in 2007 to examine centre-state relations along with the possibility of giving sweeping powers to the centre for suo motu deploy¬ment of Central forces in states and investigation of crimes affecting national security. It was chaired by the former Chief Justice of India M.M. Punchi. It submitted its recommendation in 2009. Some of its important recommendations are given in the following:

• It called for giving a fixed term of five years to the governors and their removal by the pro¬cess of impeachment (similar to that of the President) by the State Legislature.
• The governor should have the right to sanction prosecution of a minister against the advice of the council of ministers.
• It called for an amendment of Articles 355 and 356 to enable centre to bring specific trouble-torn areas under its rule for a limited period. Hence, it proposed ‘localizing emer¬gency provisions’ under which either a district or parts of a district can be brought under the central rule instead of the whole state. Such an emergency should not be for more than 3 months.
• It proposed that Centre should have power to deploy its forces in case of communal con¬flagration without state’s consent for a short period of a week.