Cbi: The Cage Parrot: Submitted To

CBI: THE CAGE PARROT LEGAL RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
CBI: THE CAGE PARROT
FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF COURSE
SUBMITTED TO
MR. VIJAYANT SINHA
TEACHER ASSOCIATE
SUBMITTED BY –
SAURABH AGRAWAL
BBA.LLB(Hons)
ROLL NO -2254
LEGAL RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001
1
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE
I, SAURABH AGRAWAL, student of Chanakya National Law University hereby declare that
the work reported in the B.B.A.LL.B. (HONS.) project report entitled: “CBI: THE CAGE
PARROT” submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my
work carried out under the supervision of Mr. VIJYANT SINHA I have not submitted this
work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am responsible for the contents of my
Project Report.
(Signature of the Candidate)
NAME: SAURABH AGRAWAL
ROLL NO: 2254
COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my faculty Mr. VIJYANT SINHA whose guidance helped me a lot
with structuring of my project. I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude
for his guidance and encouragement which sustained my efforts on all stages of this project.
I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely

with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed it in the
present way.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped
me out at every stage of my project.
THANK
YOU
NAME: SAURABH AGRAWAL
ROLL NO: 2254
COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
SEMESTER: 1
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE………………………………………………..... 2
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………...... 3
3. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………...... 5
4. MOTTO VISSION AND MISSION OF CBI……………………………………….....6
5. COMPOSITION OF CBI……………………………………………………………... 7
6. POWER, PRIVILAGES AND LIABILITIES OF CBI……………………………...... 8
7. DIFFERENT WINGS OF CBI………………………………………………………... 9
8. MISUSE OF CBI BY THE GOVERNMENT.............................................................. 12
9. SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES………………………………………………….14
10. LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. 15
10.1 VINEET NARAIN & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA
10.2 TELEPHONE EXCHANGE CASE
10.3 CBI VS CBI
11. COLCLUSION………………………………………………………………………... 25
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………….. 26
4
INTRODUCTION
The Central Bureau of Investigation traces its origin to

the Special Police Establishment (SPE) which was set up in 1941
by the Government of India. The functions of the SPE then were to investigate cases of bribery
and corruption in transactions with the War & Supply Deptt. Of India during World War II.
Superintendence of the S.P.E. was vested with the War Department. Even after the end of the
War, the need for a Central Government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by
Central Government employees was felt. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was
therefore brought into force in 1946. This Act transferred the superintendence of the SPE to the
Home Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all departments of the Govt. of India.
The jurisdiction of the SPE extended to all the Union Territories and could be extended also to
the States with the consent of the State Government concerned. From 1965 onwards, the CBI has
also been entrusted with the investigation of Economic Offences and important conventional
crimes such as murders, kidnapping, terrorist crimes, etc., on a selective basis. the investigation
of Economic Offences and important conventional crimes such as murders, kidnapping, terrorist
crimes, etc., on a selective basis.
The SPE initially had two Wings.
 They were the General Offences Wing (GOW)
 Economic Offences Wing (EOW)
The GOW dealt with cases of bribery and corruption involving the employees of Central
Government and Public Sector Undertakings. The EOW dealt with cases of violation of various
economic/fiscal laws. Under tshis set-up, the GOW had at least one Branch in each State and the
EOW in the four metropolitan cities, i.e, Delhi, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. These EOW
Branches dealt with offences reported from the Regions, i.e, each Branch had jurisdiction over
5
several States.th the consent of the State Government concerned.
MOTTO, MISSION AND VISION OF CBI1
Motto: Industry, impartiality and integrity
Mission: to upload the constitution of India and law of the land through indepth investigation
and direction and direction to provide leadership and direction to police forces and to act as the
nodal agency for enhancing inter-state and international cooperation in law enforcement.
Vision: based on its motto mission and the need to develop professionalism transparency
adaptability to change and use of science and technology in its working the CBI will focus on
1.combating corruption in public life, curbing economic and violent crimes through meticulous
investigation and prosecution
2. Evolving effective system and procedures for successful investigation and prosecution of
cases in various law courts
3. helping fight cyber and high technology crime
4. creating a healthy work environment that encourage team building, free communication
And mutual trust
5. supporting state police organizations and law enforcement agencies in national and
international cooperation, particularly relating to enquiries and investigation of cases
6. playing a lead role in the war against national and transnational organized crime
7.Uploading human right protecting the environment arts antiques and heritage of our
civilization
8. Developing a scientific temper humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform
9. striving for excellence and professionalism in all sphere of functioning so that the organisation
rises to high levels of endeavor and achievement.
1
M Laxmikanth: indian polity 5 edition
6
ORGANISATION OF CBI
At present 2019 the CBI has the following divisions
1. Anti-corruption division
2. Economic offences division
3. Special crimes division
4. Policy and international police cooperation division
5. Administration division
6. Directorate of prosecution
7. Central forensic science laboratory
COMPOSITION OF CBI
The CBI is headed by a Director. He is assisted by a special director or an additional director.

Additionally, it has a number of joint directors, deputy inspector generals, superintendents of
police and all other usual ranks of police personnel. In total, it has about 5000 staff members,
about 125 forensic scientists and about 250 law officers. The Director of CBI as Inspector-
General of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment, is responsible for the administration of
the organisation. With the enactment of CVC Act, 2003, the superintendence of Delhi Special
Police Establishment vests with the Central Government save investigations of
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which, the superintendence vests with
the Central Vigilance Commission. The Director of CBI has been provided security of two-year
tenure in office by the CVC Act, 2003.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013) amended the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
(1946) and made the following changes with respect to the composition of the CBI:
1. The Central Government shall appoint the Director of CBI on the recommendation of a three-
member committee consisting of the Prime Minister as Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in
the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him.
7
2. There shall be a Directorate of prosecution headed by a Director for conducting the

prosecution of cases under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Director of Prosecution
shall be an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. He shall
function under the overall supervision and control of the Director of CBI. He shall be appointed
by the Central Government on the recommendation of theCentral Vigilance Commission. He
shall hold office for a period of two years.
3. The Central Government shall appoint officers of the rank of SP and above in the CBI on the
recommendation of a committee consisting of the Central Vigilance Commissioner as
Chairperson, the Vigilance Commissioners, the Secretary of the Home Ministry and the
Secretary of the Department of Personnel. Later, the Delhi Special Police Establishment
(Amendment) Act, 2014 made a change in the composition of the committee related to the
appointment of the Director of C.B.I. It states that where there is no recognized leader of
opposition in the Lok Sabha, then the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok
Sabha would be a member of that committee.
POWER, PRIVILAGES AND LIABILITIES OF CBI
The legal power of investigation of CBI are derived from DSPE Act 19462..this act confers
concurrent and coextensive power, duties and privileges and liabilities on the Delhi special
police establishment (CBI) with Police officers of the Union territories . the Central government
may extent to any idea, besides Union territories, the power and jurisdiction of member of the
CBI for investigation subject to the consent of the Goverment of the concerned state Govt. while
exercising such power, members of the CBI of or above the rank of sub inspector shall be
deemed to be officers in charge of police stations of respective jurisdictions. The CBI can
investigate only such the offences as are not notified by the central government under the DSPE
Act
Jurisdiction of CBI vis-a-vis State Police
2
http://www.cbi.gov.in
8
Law and Order is a State subject and the basic jurisdiction to investigate crime lies with State
Police. Besides, due to limited resources, CBI would not be able to investigate crimes of all
kind. CBI may investigate:
 Cases which are essentially against Central Govt. employees or concerning affairs of the
Central Govt.
 Cases in which the financial interests of the Central Government are involved.
 Cases relating to the breaches of Central Laws with the enforcement of which the
Government of India is mainly concerned.
 Big cases of fraud, cheating, embezzlement and the like relating to companies in which
large funds are involved and similar other cases when committed by organised gangs or
professional criminals having ramifications in several States.
 Cases having interstate and international ramifications and involving several official
agencies where, from all angles, it is considered necessary that a single investigating
agency should be incharge of the investigation.
DIFFERENT WINGS OF CBI
 Anti-Corruption Division
The Anti-Corruption Division is responsible for collection of intelligence with regard to

corruption, maintaining liaison with various Departments through their Vigilance Officers,
enquiries into complaints about bribery and corruption, investigation and prosecution of offences
pertaining to bribery and corruption and tasks relating to preventive aspects of corruption. The
Anti-Corruption Division investigates cases against public servants under the control of the
Central Government, public servants in Public Sector Undertakings under the control of Central
Government and cases against the public servants working under State Govt. entrusted to the
CBI by the State Governments and serious departmental irregularities committed by the above
mentioned public servants.
9
 Special Crimes Division
The Special Crimes Division handles all cases of economic offences and all cases of
conventional nature such as offences relating to internal security, espionage, sabotage, narcotics
and psychotropic substances, antiquities, murders, dacoities/robberies, cheating, criminal breach
of trust, forgeries, dowry deaths, suspicious deaths and other IPC offences as well as offences
under other laws notified under the DSPE Act. It is also responsible for investigation of
interstate and international rackets, large-scale frauds affecting the property or revenue of the
Government and crimes of national importance.
 Economic Offences Division
The Economic Offences Division investigates financial crimes, bank frauds, money laundering,
illegal money market operations, graft in Public Sector Undertakings and Banks.
Technical Advisory Units
The Technical Advisory Units provide expert guidance and assistance in banking, taxation,
engineering and foreign trading/foreign exchange matters during enquiries and investigations
taken up by the CBI. The technical advisory units are :
Banking Company Law/Insurance Advisory Unit.
Engineering Advisory Unit (Civil/Electrical matters).
Taxation Advisory Unit (Direct/Indirect Tax matters).
Foreign trading/Foreign Exchange Advisory Unit.
Directorate of Prosecution
The Directorate of Prosecution was established in pursuance of the orders of Supreme Court in
Vineet Narain case. The Directorate tenders legal advice in CBI cases, besides conducting
prosecution in CBI cases. The Directorate also attends to matters relating to legal matters raised
in the IGPs/DGPs conference, matters relating to interpretation of laws, appointment of special
10
counsels, statutory rules and regulations and amendments thereof, preparation of notes on Legal
matters for publication in CBI Gazette etc.
 Policy Division
The Policy Division deals with all matters relating to policy, procedure, organisation, vigilance
& security in the CBI, correspondence and liaison with Ministries and implementation of Special
Programmes for vigilance and anti-corruption, etc.
 Administration Division
The Administration Division of the CBI looks after all matters relating to personnel,
establishment and accounts of all the Divisions of the CBI and is headed by an officer of the
rank of Joint Director/IG.
 Systems Division
The Systems Division looks after the information technology needs of the CBI. It generates data
required for answering parliament questions, CBI clearances for appointments/awards of medals
etc. This division also monitors the current ongoing comprehensive computerization plan of the
CBI. The CBI Command Centre consisting of Strategic Communication Centre & Network
Monitoring Centre functions under the Systems Division.
 Co-ordination Division
The Co-ordination Division comprises
Co-ordination Unit
Interpol Unit
The Co-ordination Unit takes part in the organisation of Directors General of Police, CID and
other Conferences and is also incharge of the publication of the CBI Bulletin.
The INTERPOL Unit is the Secretariat of the National Central Bureau and assists the Director
CBI in his capacity as the Head of the National Central Bureau. The INTERPOL Unit, in its
capacity as the Secretariat of the National Central Bureau, liaises with the International Criminal
11
Police Organisation - INTERPOL and is required to maintain liaison with the member countries
of the INTERPOL. It handles and follows up the correspondence relating to requests for
investigation to be carried out abroad in cases under investigation with the CBI or the State
Police. Similarly, requests received from foreign countries for investigation in India are
forwarded by the Interpol Unit to the State Police and then followed up.
 Central Forensic Laboratory
The Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) provides Expert Opinion on various aspects of
forensic science concerning crime investigation. Apart from Delhi Police and the CBI, it assists
Central Govt. Departments, States, State Forensic Science Laboratories, Defence Forces, Govt.
Undertakings, Universities, Banks, etc. in criminal cases. The laboratory has a research and
development set-up to tackle special problems. The expertise available at the CFSL is also
utilised in teaching and training activities conducted by the CBI, ICFS, Police Training
Institutions, Universities and Government Departments conducting Law Enforcement Courses.
The Cyber Forensic Laboratory and Digital Imaging Centre functioning under CFSL assists
enforcement agencies in the collection and forensic analysis of electronic evidence.
CFSL experts are summoned for appearing before courts. Their services are also utilised by
investigating agencies for the inspection of scenes of crime.
THE USAGE OF TERM- CBI: THE CAGE PARROT
SUPREME COURT GUIDLINES
The SUPREME COURT raised questions on the CBI’s independence while hearing the
Coalgate scam case, called it a “caged parrot speaking in its 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.3
3
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-in-school/cbi-a-caged-parrot-speaking-in-its-
masters-voice-sc/article4697433.ece.
12
The court making a scathing comment on the functioning of the investigating agency said,” it’s a
sordid saga that there are many masters and one parrot.”
Asking the govt to make CBI impartial, the apex court said it needs to be ensured that the CBI
functions free of the external pressures.
If the CBI is not made independent, we will step in, the SC observed
“job of CBI is not to interact with government officials but to interrogate to find the truth ,” the
SC said. The judges remarked that the CBI must know how to stand up against all pulls and
pressures by government and its officials.
Commenting on the law minister role the SC said that a minister can asked for a report but can’t
interfere with the CBI probe. THE SC also questions how the CBI could have regular interaction
with the ministry officials.
In response to this, the Centre filed an affidavit stating following measures it will adopt to ensure
the autonomy of the CBI:
 CBI director will be appointed by a collegium comprising of the Prime Minister, Chief
Justice of India and Leader of the Opposition. The CBI director cannot be appointed
or removed without the consent of this collegium.
 The CBI director can be removed on the grounds of misbehavior only by an order from
the President after an inquiry.
 There will be an accountability commission headed by three retired Supreme Court or High
Court judges. The committee will look into cases of grievances against the CBI.
 The affidavit said that CVC will have the power of superintendence and administration over
the CBI for all cases to be probed under the Prevention of Corruption Act but such power
would vest in the Centre for rest of the cases.
 A Bill would be introduced in Parliament to ensure financial autonomy to the agency.
13
 Sanction for probe: Centre shall take a decision on a request to sanction for probe against
officers of the level of Jt. Secretary and above within a period of three months and give
reasons if sanction is denied.
MISUSES OF CBI BY GOVERMENT
"The CBI is being converted into dirty tricks department of the ruling party. Habitual misuse of
the CBI by prominent leaders for fixing political opponents and illegal intervention to tamper
with fair investigation of serious criminal cases has landed the CBI in an unfathomable mess."
It is lazy, however, to blame the courts. They have at least tried to do something for two decades.
I won’t blame them for this failure to reform the CBI. As we can see now, the CBI has become a
monster that no one institution can cleanse — not the courts, government or activists, and least
of all, the Indian Police Service.
It is because too many good people and institutions have worked over two decades, if sometimes
gratuitously, at saving it, it has now become a wild animal that defies description. What was
once dismissed as a ‘caged parrot’ has now been able to hold our politics and polity to ransom
since the early 1990s (remember the Jain Hawala case?), destroy careers of politicians and
resurrect them, see practically all influential people prosecuted by it, from L.K. Advani (Jain
Hawala) to P.V. Narasimha Rao (JMM bribery), to A. Raja (2G) and Dayanidhi Marin (telephone
exchange case), acquitted. Meanwhile, its evidence-free scandal-mania has damaged our
economy too, from telecom to mining.
On May 8, 2013, Justice Lodha, while heading a three-judge bench dealing with the coal block
allocation case, had described the CBI as a “caged parrot”.
Asked if he still believed that the CBI was a caged parrot, Justice Lodha, who became Chief
Justice in 2014, said on Tuesday: “Caged parrot! That continues. There is no independence for
CBI. That problem continues.
The political-executive interference is there every time In November, the governments of

Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal withdrew ‘general consent’ to the CBI to register fresh cases
14
under its purview. One implication of the decision is that the CBI will have to obtain the State’s
consent case by case; this will give a State government the opportunity to both ensure that the
CBI is not acting at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre, or insert its own politics into
investigations. The agency may technically go ahead with cases it already registered in these
States, but that logic holds only on paper. Without a State government’s active cooperation, the
CBI or any Central agency cannot carry out its operations in that State.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
Vineet Narain & Others vs. Union of India & Another4
This case concerns the historic Hawala scandal in India, which uncovered possible bribery
payments to several high-ranking Indian politicians and bureaucrats from a funding source
linked to suspected terrorists. Following news coverage of the scandal, members of the public
were dismayed by the failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate
investigations of the officials with the apparent intent to protect certain implicated individuals
who were extremely influential in government and politics. This litigation was the result of
4
https://indiankanoon.org
15
public interest petitions filed on these matters with the Court pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution (which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions for the enforcement of
fundamental rights contained in the Constitution).56
The 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. This directive removed the CBI from the supervision of the Central Government
thought to be partly responsible for the inertia that contributed to the CBI’s previous lack of
urgency with respect to the investigation of high-ranking officials. The CVC was now
responsible for ensuring that allegations of corruption against public officials were thoroughly
investigated regardless of the identity of the accused and without interference from the
Government.
Decision and Outcomes:
In terms of enforcement, following Court orders, investigations were conducted and charge
sheets were filed against certain accused. However, all the cases collapsed at the stage of
prosecution in court.7
The Court’s directions pertaining to structural relief were followed by the executive in the
immediate aftermath of the decision but without a detailed investigation into individual cases it
is not possible to assess the extent to which they were enforced.
The Court in this case had struck down the validity of a directive issued by the Ministries and
Departments in the Central Government that required the CBI to seek approval of the Central
Government before pursuing investigation against bureaucrats of the level of Joint Secretary and
above on grounds that it violated the independence of the investigative process. However, the
Central Vigilance Commissioner Act, 2003, reinstated this requirement. This directive was again
struck down by the Supreme Court in the course of another judgment in 2014 on the basis that it
violated the right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
5
6
https://www.escr-net.org
7
http://www.thehindu.in
16
The primary purpose of the case was to compel a proper investigation into the scam, however
this never happened. The focus of the judgment on the future and autonomy of the CBI may
have been a way to divert attention from the issue of the scam. And as regards the directions of
the court relating to the CBI, these were heavily diluted by politicians during implementation
which resulted in the CVC being essentially toothless and controlled by the government.
Nothing substantial changed in the aftermath of the case and today, scams continue with
impunity. (Interview with Vineet Narain, July 2015. He filed this case, and is a prominent
journalist and anti-corruption activist.)
relevance of the Case:
Effectively addressing public corruption is essential for the sustainable realization of economic
and social rights since the impact of corruption often overlaps with violations of economic and
social rights. This case is thus a step in the right direction in providing a mode of accountability
in public life.
This case is also significant because the Supreme Court liberally interpreted its powers under the
Constitution to devise various innovative procedural techniques. These include: the appointment
of amicus curiae to provide assistance to the court on legal issues: exercising supervisory
jurisdiction to monitor implementation and delivering detailed to the executive and formulating
guidelines to fill a legislative vacuum on the issue of directions public corruption. This case
created public awareness regarding the issue of corruption, and inspired people to engage with
the judicial system through the process of public interest litigation (Interview with Vineet
Narain, July 2015.)
Formation of central vigilance commission (CVC)
After Jain hawala case8 CBI was linked with CVC and Central vigilance commission provided a
statutory body status Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by
a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity to be furnished
by the Cabinet Secretary. The appointment shall be made by the President on the basis of the
recommendations made by the Committee. This shall be done immediately.it will also
8
https://indiankanoon.org
17
responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI. While Government shall remain answerable
for the CBI's functioning, to introduce visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for
over viewing the CBI's working, the CVC shall be entrusted with the responsibility of
superintendence over the CBI's functioning. The CBI shall report to the CVC about cases taken
up by it for investigation; progress of investigations; cases in which chargesheets are filed and
their progress. The CVC shall review the progress of all cases moved by the CBI for sanction of
prosecution of public servants which are pending with competent authorities, specially those in
which sanction has been delayed or refused. The role of the Central Government shall take
all measures necessary to ensure that the CBI functions effectively and efficiently and is viewed
as a non-partisan agency.
The CVC shall have a separate section in its Annual Report on the CBI's functioning after the
supervisory function is transferred to it. Recommendations for appointment of the Director, of
the CBI shall be made by a Committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner with the
Home Secretary and Secretary (Personnel) as members. The views of the incumbent Director
shall be considered bythe Committeefor making the best choice. The Committee shall draw up a
panel of IPS officers on the basis of their seniority, integrity, experience in investigation and anti
– corruption work. The final selection shall be made by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
(ACC) from the panel recommended by the Selection Committee. If none among the panel is
found suitable, the reasons the reasons thereof shall be recorded and the Committee asked to
draw up a fresh panel.
TELEPHONE EXCHANGE CASE
Madras HC orders reframing of charges against Maran brothers
The CBI had charged the Maran brothers and five others of illegally obtaining more than 760
telephone connections when Dayanidhi Maran was the Union Telecom Minister.
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by former Union Telecom Minister
Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi Maran and three others to quash all charges framed
18
against them by a special court for CBI cases in the alleged illegal BSNL telephone exchange
case.
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira, however, remanded the matter to the special court for framing of
charges in accordance with law since the petitioners had claimed that there were certain errors
such as framing of common charges against all accused without any material to substantiate
individual involvement .He added that, if necessary, the prosecution could assist the special court
by submitting draft charges.
Appearing on behalf of Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, his counsel had argued that the basic premise on
which the CBI had rested its case itself was false and therefore his client, who had brought in
telecommunication revolution in the country, should not be put through the ordeal of facing the
trial without any basis whatsoever.
judge R Vasanthi had on January 30 framed charges against all seven accused under IPC sections
120B (criminal conspiracy), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating), and the
Prevention of Corruption Act. At the time, Dayanidhi Maran had called the case “politically
motivated” and had denied all the charges, while his brother Kalanithi claimed he was made a
“scapegoat” and that he was “unnecessarily being included in the case”.
He said the charge of his client having obtained more than 760 telephone connections at his
residence, during his minister ship, was completely wrong. He said that Mr. Maran had obtained
only 10 connections at his residence in Chennai and around 12 to 13 connections in Delhi. These
parent connections had several “child numbers” attached to them.
Even otherwise, there was no bar under law for a Minister to obtain multiple telephone
connections given the nature of work that he/she performs. It was also contended that the CBI
had proceeded on the basis of an erroneous assumption that a cap of three telephone connections
imposed on the Members of Parliament would apply to the Ministers.
It was the further contention of the former Minister that there was no shred of evidence to prove
that the telephone connections obtained by the Minister were illegally used by Sun TV Network
owned by his elder brother. He said the telephone connections could at the most be used only for
phone-in television programmes and there was no material to prove such usage.
19
Though the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the High Court’s July 25 order which
reversed discharge of all seven accused from the case by the Special Court on March 14, Mr.
Dayanidhi Maran said, it would not preclude the court from examining the charges framed
pursuant to those orders and quash them if they were found to be untenacious.
Apart from the Maran brothers, SUN TV electrician K.S. Ravi, the former minister’s personal
secretary V. Gowthaman and the television network’s Chief Technical Officer S. Kannan had
also sought to quash the charges.
Former Chief General Managers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) K.B. Brahmadathan
and M.P. Velusamy, who were the other two accused in the case, had not filed any petition
challenging the charges framed against them.
No sanction needed for CBI to probe bureaucrats: Supreme court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held as invalid the legal provision that makes prior sanction
mandatory for the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a probe against senior bureaucrats
in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Like almost any other judgement dealing with cases of corruption in high places, Tuesday’s
order is related to the Supreme Court’s December 1997ruling in the Vineet Narain vs Union of
India case related to the Jain hawala scandal, involving payoffs to politicians by four Jain
brothers who facilitated illegal foreign exchange transactions (termed hawala). That ruling, like
Tuesday’s, sought to reduce the interference of the government in investigations of politicians
and bureaucrats by CBI.
Subsequently, in 2003, the then National Democratic Alliance government, headed by the BJP,
amended the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to insert Section 6-A.
“It is very sad that this section was reintroduced even after the court’s decision in the hawala
matter. This shows the extent to which both BJP and Congress governments were willing to go
to prevent the prosecution of corrupt officials and offer them protection," said lawyer Prashant
20
Bhushan, who is also a leader of the Aam Aadmi Party which is fighting the 2014 general
elections on an anti-corruption plank.
The Centre for Public Interest Litigation, a non-profit organization with which Bhushan is
closely associated, had challenged the introduction of Section 6-A in 2003. In 2005, this matter
was clubbed with the petition filed by Swamy to be heard by a Constitution bench.
Meenakshi Lekhi, a spokesperson for BJP, welcomed the top court order.
“Any criminality involved should not have a discrimination based on the rank of a person,"
Lekhi said.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justices A.K. Patnaik, S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Mishra and Ibrahim Kalifulla, while allowing the petitions filed by BJP
leader Subramanian Swamy and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, held that Section 6A of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which granted protection to joint secretary and
above officers from facing even a preliminary inquiry by the CBI in corruption cases, was
violates of Article 14. Welcoming the court order, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha told The Hindu: “It
is a landmark judgment that will empower the agency in the investigations into several cases
pending due to the provision that has now been struck down by the Constitution Bench. We had
for long been of the view that inquiry against senior officials need not require any prior
permission.”
Writing the judgment, the CJI said, “Corruption is an enemy of [the] nation and tracking down a
corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary
mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of a public servant does not qualify the
person from exemption from equal treatment. The decision-making power does not segregate
corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crime doers and have to be tracked down
by the same process of inquiry and investigation.”
The Bench said, “Section 6A of the DSPE Act [granting protection to one set of officers] is
directly destructive and runs counter to the object and reason of the PC Act, 1988. It also
undermines the object of detecting and punishing high-level corruption. How can two public
servants against whom there are allegations of corruption or graft or bribe taking or criminal
21
misconduct under the PC Act, 1988, be made to be treated differently because one happens to be
a junior officer and the other a senior decision maker?”
“The provision in Section 6A impedes tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats as without
previous approval of the Central government, the CBI cannot even hold preliminary inquiry
much less an investigation into the allegations. The protection under Section 6A has propensity
of shielding the corrupt,” the Bench added.
Observing that there could not be any protection to corrupt public servants, the Bench said, “The
aim and object of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and any law that impedes that
object may not stand the test of Article 14. Breach of rule of law, in our opinion, amounts to
negation of equality under Article 14. Section 6-A fails in the context of these facts of Article 14.
CBI VS CBI
The war inside CBI: Why Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana are at each
other's throats?
The CBI has always been into news and controversies for some or the other reasons. In the latest
case of CBI v. CBI9, there was a conflict between CBI director Alok Verma and CBI special
director Rakesh Asthana. In October 2017, Rakesh Asthana was promoted to the post of special
director of CBI. Alok Verma, who was the director of the CBI at that time, questioned his
promotion because Rakesh Asthana was accused in a corruption case known as Sterling Biotech
Corruption Case. Alok questioned to Central Vigilance Commission on promoting a person who
is accused in a corruption case and whose decision is still pending. But, CVC rejected the
objections of Alok Verma. When the case reached to SC, the apex court denied interfering in the
matter and hence the promotion of Rakesh Asthana was upheld.
9
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/may/28/cbi-probes-leading-to-fewer-
convictions-
22
A turf battle between the two senior most officers has now cleaved the agency, with other
officers too, taking sides. The team under Asthana has remained loyal to its boss while several
others have chosen to align themselves with Verma. But a large number of officers have chosen
to remain neutral as well, given the continuing suspense over which way the tide would turn.
Manish Kumar Sinha moves SC against transfer; officer was part of team probing Rakesh
Asthana case File photo of Rakesh Asthana. PTI
Deputy SP Ashwini Kumar Gupta also moved the Supreme Court challenging his repatriation to
the Intelligence Bureau (IB), terming it "unjustified" and "malafide". Gupta alleged that he was
repatriated to his parent Intelligence Bureau (IB) cadre as he was investigating various
corruption charges against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has been divested of his
duties and sent on leave along with CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma.
Asthana has also been divested of his duties and sent on leave by the central government
following his ongoing feud with the CBI Director. The CBI had booked Asthana on allegations
of receiving a bribe from an accused probed by him in a case linked to meat exporter Moin
Qureshi.
“It’s no secret that Asthana enjoys external support because of which he is able to periodically
challenge the director. This is doing nothing but destroying the reputation of CBI," said a former
official, who was closely associated with CBI. “The government should immediately remove
Asthana and transfer him to an innocuous post until the probe is complete."
CBI said that “Rakesh Asthana…received illegal gratification through private persons Manoj
and Somesh Prasad for giving relief in the case. Satish Sana is one of the witnesses in a case
pertaining to Moin Qureshi. The case against the public servants (Asthana and others) relates to
transactions beginning in December 2017".
There are several grey areas in dealing with an officer in a case like this. He may be asked to go
on leave pending an inquiry or maybe suspended altogether," the official cited earlier said.
“However, that call has to be taken by the highest level of the government and not from within
the CBI."
The rift at the top in CBI has been out in the open, with reports of a fallout between Verma and
23
Asthana surfacing earlier this year, after the agency in a letter to the CVC made it clear that
Asthana had not been given any powers to represent the director in the latter’s absence.
Asthana was appointed CBI’s special director in October 2017, and has spearheaded several
cases such as the AgustaWestland scam, the coal scam and the probe against liquor baron Vijay
Mallya. He also headed an SIT to probe the 2002 Godhra Sabarmati Express burning case and
had given Narendra Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, a clean chit in the communal violence
that ensued.
A CBI officer, who was probing the FIR lodged against Special Director Rakesh Asthana, on
Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of his transfer to Nagpur in Maharashtra.
Manish Kumar Sinha, an IPS officer who was part of the investigation team probing Asthana's
role in an alleged corruption case, mentioned his plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice
Ranjan Gogoi for urgent hearing on Tuesday.
The bench also comprising Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph is scheduled to hear on Tuesday
the plea of CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma challenging the government's decision of divesting
him of duties and sending him on leave.
Sinha said that his plea also be heard along with Verma on Tuesday. He has alleged that he was
transferred to Nagpur and as a result has been taken out from the probe team investigating
against Asthana.
CONCLUSION
After CBI was referred to as a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice” and further as “It’s a
sordid saga that there are many masters and one parrot,” by the apex court, CBI has been in the
limelight n recent years. CBI is India’s one of the supreme investigation agencies. From years
after years, the body has played a predominant role in curbing corruption and bribery cases.
After such a vast role that CBI handles, it is not easy to maintain the same level of effectiveness
24
every time. Sometimes some things are meant to happen which cannot be escaped. The recent
controversies of the Central Bureau of Investigation are some of the examples of those
mishappenings. But that does not mean in any way that people will lose faith over CBI that in all
circumstances conducts all investigations in a free, fair and impartial manner as per the law.
People should have their trust and faith in CBI irrespective of the fact that the CBI has faced
harsh criticism and being in the spotlight in recent times.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
REFERANCES
 http://cbi.gov.in/rt_infoact/rti.php.
 https://www.civilsdaily.com/central-bureau-of-investigation-composition-functions/.
25
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/les-avis/cbi-the-past-the-present-and-the-future
 https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-exempt-cbi-from-rti-asks-
petition/article19902011.ece.
 https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-in-school/cbi-a-caged-parrot-speaking-in-its-
masters-voice-sc/article4697433.ece.
 https://in.reuters.com/article/cbi-supreme-court-parrot-coal/a-caged-parrot-supreme-
court-describes-cbi-idINDEE94901W20130510.
 http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/may/28/cbi-probes-leading-to-fewer-
convictions-1820325.html.
 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/was-cbi-director-alok-verma-removed-illegally-
1374234-2018-10-24.
 18-10-23. https://scroll.in/article/909334/the-daily-fix-everything-about-alok-vermas-
sacking-from-the-cbi-is-under-question.
26

Cbi: The Cage Parrot: Submitted To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Cbi: The Cage Parrot: Submitted To

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Cbi: The Cage Parrot: Submitted To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

What is the topic of the document?

What is the topic of the document?

What are the different sections covered in the document?

What are the different sections covered in the document?

CBI: THE CAGE PARROT LEGAL RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

CBI: THE CAGE PARROT

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF COURSE

MR. VIJAYANT SINHA

LEGAL RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

(Signature of the Candidate)

NAME: SAURABH AGRAWAL

ROLL NO: 2254

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely

NAME: SAURABH AGRAWAL

ROLL NO: 2254

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

4. MOTTO VISSION AND MISSION OF CBI……………………………………….....6

6. POWER, PRIVILAGES AND LIABILITIES OF CBI……………………………...... 8

7. DIFFERENT WINGS OF CBI………………………………………………………... 9

8. MISUSE OF CBI BY THE GOVERNMENT.............................................................. 12

9. SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES………………………………………………….14

10. LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. 15

10.1 VINEET NARAIN & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA

10.2 TELEPHONE EXCHANGE CASE

10.3 CBI VS CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation traces its origin to

The SPE initially had two Wings.

 They were the General Offences Wing (GOW)

 Economic Offences Wing (EOW)

several States.th the consent of the State Government concerned.

MOTTO, MISSION AND VISION OF CBI1

Motto: Industry, impartiality and integrity

3. helping fight cyber and high technology crime

And mutual trust

At present 2019 the CBI has the following divisions

2. Economic offences division

3. Special crimes division

4. Policy and international police cooperation division

7. Central forensic science laboratory

The CBI is headed by a Director. He is assisted by a special director or an additional director.

2. There shall be a Directorate of prosecution headed by a Director for conducting the

POWER, PRIVILAGES AND LIABILITIES OF CBI

DIFFERENT WINGS OF CBI

The Anti-Corruption Division is responsible for collection of intelligence with regard to

 Special Crimes Division

 Economic Offences Division

Technical Advisory Units

Banking Company Law/Insurance Advisory Unit.

Engineering Advisory Unit (Civil/Electrical matters).

Taxation Advisory Unit (Direct/Indirect Tax matters).

Foreign trading/Foreign Exchange Advisory Unit.

The Co-ordination Division comprises

 Central Forensic Laboratory

THE USAGE OF TERM- CBI: THE CAGE PARROT

SUPREME COURT GUIDLINES

MISUSES OF CBI BY GOVERMENT

The political-executive interference is there every time In November, the governments of

Vineet Narain & Others vs. Union of India & Another4

Decision and Outcomes: