Can 'open-door' CBI chief Ranjit Sinha be shown the door? Probably not

It is difficult to see how the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director, Ranjit Sinha, is going to emerge unscathed by recent disclosures which show that his doors were open to all kinds of people, including many people his agency was investigating. In a specific case involving his meetings with executives of the Anil Ambani Group, accused in the 2G scam, Sinha has admitted he met them but said he did not do them any favours. But the huge laundry list of people he met repeatedly in his home tells us that something was not quite right in these meetings. The Indian Express, for example, tells us today (5 September) that all kinds of people toting names like Shiv Pal, Shiv Babu and Mithilesh had visited Sinha at home more than 100 times in a year. Usually, this kind of frequency is limited to close relatives or bosom pals. Now, there is nothing wrong if the CBI Director meets anybody in his office, and there are records kept of the conversation, but surely beyond very close friends or relatives, such an open door policy at home can lead to serious conflicts of interests? Just as judges cannot meet the accused or their relatives at home (they can only do so in courts) to avoid accusations of impropriety, prima facie one should consider these visits to the CBI Director’s home as something “fishy.” [caption id=“attachment_1698603” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Despite the questions, Sinha is unlikely to lose his post. AFP image[/caption] But Ranjit Sinha seems to see nothing wrong in such interactions. Another Express story, in fact, quotes him as saying that he is “going to keep my gate open and have already given instructions… let us see what the government can do.” Sinha’s statement can be seen as an effort to prove that he is an open-door kind of person, and that meeting so many people at home was not any admission of hanky-panky. But this attitude won’t stand scrutiny. When someone investigating a crime meets those being investigated and also many others so frequently, he is violating a fundamental rule of fairness and objectivity: that one’s actions must be above reproach. It is true that the CBI Director cannot be assumed to have done favours just because he met lots of people lots of time at home, but the very fact that he was running open house at home rather than the office can seem wrong. Human beings can deny intent to do wrong, but actions have to be in consonance with stated intent. Sinha has tried to cover his bases by pointing out that he was investigating powerful people, hinting that they must have plotted this disclosure. The Times of India quotes him as saying this: “I have taken action against powerful people in high-profile cases, including Intelligence Bureau officers in cases like Ishrat Jahan fake encounter, against corporate executives, government departments, banks and other agencies. Has anyone touched people at that level ever before?” There is no denying that many powerful people would want the investigations against them to stop, but this is precisely the reason why Sinha should not have been running an open house at his residence. He has compromised his independence by making is actions suspect. Will these indiscretions cost Ranjit Sinha his job? Probably not. The CBI Director is selected based on a short-list prepared by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and there are no provisions for his removal before the end of his term. Sinha’s two-year term comes to an end on 30 November, and so it is difficult to see why anyone would want to remove him three months in advance, when it would cause so many eyebrows to be raised. The BJP is said to be planning a change in the law to make it possible to remove a CBI Director for misbehavior, but this law is going to be contested in courts. The chances are Sinha will stay on till the end of his tenure, but the problems highlighted by his tenancy of this sensitive office – lack of independence, pressures from powerful people – need addressing. The only way he will lose his job is if the Supreme Court steps in. That too seems unlikely, given the limited time left in his tenure.