Sloppy investigations and exaggerated claims, CBI's poor work ethics make it unworthy of 'elite' status
Not only does the CBI have a poor conviction rate of just 3.96 percent in major crimes, the investigation agency has also failed to live up to its motto of industry, impartiality, and integrity
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is our elite instrument against crime. Like America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the CBI was formed to tackle something specific. The FBI initially was set up to go after Communism, whereas the CBI was meant to take on corruption.
So, how effective is it actually? We hear the demand that the “case be given to the CBI” every time something is in the news. The CBI is a central agency, reporting to the Union government, unlike the police, which reports to individual states. The FBI today works on terrorism and many other things. The CBI is also supposed to fight crime on several issues. So, what sort of cases should the CBI work on? This is not clear and it could be anything.
It could be a murder, merely because it has become big television news (the Aarushi Talwar murder case or the Sheena Bora murder case), it could be the various things that are called scandals (like the 2G scam or the Nirav Modi scam), and it could be things that have to do with government corruption.
The CBI network comprises of 10 regional zones: Mumbai (looking after Maharashtra, Gujarat and Goa), Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka), Chennai (Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry), Guwahati (Assam, Arunachal, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura), Kolkata (West Bengal, Orissa and Port Blair), Patna (Bihar and Jharkhand), Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand), Chandigarh (Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir), Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh), and Delhi (Rajasthan and NCR). Then there is Anti-corruption Headquarter Zone, Economic Offences Zone I and II, Bank Security and Fraud Zone, Special Crime Zone, Special Task Force Zone, Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (which, believe it or not, till a few months ago was still ‘investigating' the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi), the Policy Division, the Technical, Forensic and Coordination Zone and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, which itself has an impressive 11 divisions: ballistics, biology, chemistry, computer forensic, DNA profiling, document, finger print, forensic psychology, photo and scientific aid, physics, and serology.
I was surprised to know this because having been a court reporter, I know that the quality of all forensics material produced by the government in trials is poor. All in all some 6,000 people work in the CBI. So what does the nation get out of this fabulous infrastructure? Very little that is useful.
The CBI’s conviction rate was 65.6 percent in 2005, 72.9 percent in 2006, 67.7 percent in 2007 and 64.4 percent in 2009. In 2017, the Lok Sabha was told that the rate of convictions under the NDA government was 69.02 percent in 2014, 65.1 percent in 2015 and 66.8 percent in 2016. However, these numbers are misleading because they are absolute.
In the book Curbing corruption in Asian countries: an impossible dream? author Jon ST Quah quotes an Indian writer SS Gill as saying about the CBI data: "If there are 30 cases of heinous crimes and 70 cases of minor thefts, and you get a conviction in 60 cases of theft, it would be a sheer deceit to claim a 60 percent rate of success."
What does he mean by that? On 8 March, a report was published with the headline "CBI arrests AIIMS staff on graft charge". It said that an individual, KD Biswal, was “caught while demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹19,500 from a civil works contractor for clearing pending bills".
Biswal is an assistant engineer at AIIMS and the report said that the investigating agency also conducted searches at the residential and official premises of the accused. Is this the sort of thing that we think of when we hear the words "CBI"? Probably not. But this is where most of the convictions come from. The CBI’s rate of conviction on major crimes is 3.96 percent, according to vigilance commissioner R Sri Kumar.
The other problem of the CBI is institutional mischief. The CBI's founding director DP Kohli, said 55 years ago to his team that "the public expects the highest standard from you both in efficiency and integrity. That faith has to be sustained. The motto of the CBI — industry, impartiality, and integrity — must always guide your work. Loyalty to duty must come first, everywhere, at all times and in all circumstances."
The CBI has not met these high standards. Indeed, they are part of the problem and not the solution. In their book Scam: From Harshad Mehta to Global Trust Bank, Debashis Bose and Sucheta Dalal wrote: "Instead of quickly completing the probe and filing charge-sheets, the CBI, acting as the government’s handmaiden, was busy spreading stories that CBI joint director K Madhavan resigned because he could not get a promotion and that Harshad was financing the narcotics trade. It also repeatedly held back crucial information from JPC. Madhavan embarrassed CBI and its chief, by telling the committee that his suggestion to probe the foreign accounts of the scamsters was disregarded. As if to save face, CBI crudely planted a report on the night of Sunday, 14 February, 1993, in Doordarshan, PTI, and UNI. It said: CBI had frozen Harshad’s Swiss bank accounts. The Indian Express checked with the Swiss authorities and discovered it to be untrue. CBI made a cruder attempt to fudge, stating that some accounts were frozen earlier but had since been released. This too, said The Indian Express, was a lie. Continuing to wield its main weapon, CBI arrested K Margabanthu former chairman of the United Commercial Bank and kept him in custody for weeks together."
Was anyone internally punished for this? Of course not.
This has continued to this day. The law enforcement agencies in India make a lot of noise. Arrests are made and sensational stories are spread. The court is told that further custody is needed because more evidence is being gathered. This is how the big scandal usually unfolds.
And then in court, the case falls apart because the work has been sloppy and the claims exaggerated, as we found in the 2G scam. Readers should remember this the next time the newspapers and TV news channels report that the CBI has cracked the case.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is right in saying that a democratic model of governance existed in the subcontinent millennia before India, that is Bharat, became a sovereign democratic republic on 26 January 1950.
Netaji's 'Dilli Chalo' campaign finally finds fruition amid tussle over Bengal tableau’s exclusion at R-Day parade
In 1969 when independent India’s finally got round to thinking about a replacement for George V under the canopy behind India Gate, three names were considered, Nehruji never wanted to remove George V from it, and plans to put Gandhiji there also got stymied. However, Netaji will finally prevail
India will have to keep up the momentum in dealing with Sri Lanka as already there are signs of China cleaning up its act.