The Central Bureau of Investigation is facing an unprecedented crisis of credibility, following corruption charges against its own officials and the Supreme Court’s rap on its knuckles. This pathetic situation – within an organisation with a unique culture, internal functional independence and supervisory systems – is possible only due to a slow erosion of the organisational culture.
The CBI’s founder-director D.P. Kohli baptised it with the motto of “Industry, Impartiality and Integrity”, making those the core values of the agency. He established the organisation, in the early sixties, with an investigation management system that would amaze a management expert even today.
In this system, the investigating officer was the kingpin, with absolute freedom and independence to draw a monthly plan of action in consultation with his law officer. The supervisory officers would review the investigation carried out and prepare a monthly progress report after scrutinizing the case diaries. These were further scrutinized by all the supervisory officers in the hierarchy at all stages of the investigation.
Also Read: Why a Revamping of the CBI Is Necessary
The supervisory officer’s role was to assist, support, protect and guide the IO in the collection of quality and impartial evidence. He had the power to use his discretion to agree or disagree in writing with the investigating officer. A well-documented healthy dissent or agreement was the hall mark of the CBI. This typical exercise continued until conviction or acquittal, and disposal of the final appeal in court.
In the old days, the authority of the CBI was unquestionable, and it was a rule not to arrest the accused until he was presented before the court of law. CBI officers were strictly prohibited from interacting with the media and operations were carried out in a least obtrusive manner, giving due regard to the dignity of the suspect.
No paraphernalia
The travels of the IO during investigation was always inconspicuous, without much paraphernalia or socialising with the public. It was a demanding job and at times the IO had to camp in remote places for long periods, living like a recluse.
As a matter of principle, CBI officers never attended sponsored social events or lavish private parties. They did not make personal use of official vehicles.
Supervisory officers never met an accused in an anti-corruption case during an investigation. If an accused contacted a supervisory officer for clarification, it was mandatory on the part of that officer to be briefed by the IO. Then, if the supervisory officer thought the accused had to be heard, it would happen in the presence of the IO, in office – not at anyone’s residence.
The image of the CBI was important to every member of the organisation. This is how an organisation with strong organisational culture, which respected its motto in letter and spirit, was nurtured and built by everyone worked there over fifty years.
Also Read: Rakesh Asthana, Sushil Modi and PMO Worked Together to Book Lalu: CBI Director
The CBI had complete liberty and freedom in selecting officers on deputation. The method for inducting officers on deputation to the CBI was also unique and always oriented towards nurturing the ethos, in which professional and personal integrity was the foremost criteria.
The selection process for IOs to be taken on deputation was left to the SP, while the selection of SP and other level officers on deputation was left to the higher ranks. Of course, the controlling department was always kept informed. Many outstanding IOs have been declined on grounds of their socialising or lavish lifestyles.
Eroded slowly and steadily
Unfortunately, this organisational culture has been eroded slowly and steadily. It began with the progress report of the SP being drafted by the IO, defeating its very purpose and reducing it into a farce. Then began the misuse of official vehicles for personal use, which degenerated into their use for the officer’s families.
Officers began to cover boarding and lodging expenses on tour through other funds, even though they claimed official travel and daily allowances. CBI officers attending the functions of business houses or socialising with the media stopped being frowned upon.
The final blow to the organisation came when supervisory officers began to meet the accused in sensitive cases sans IO, on the pretext of looking into an IO’s high-handed behaviour. This set about the dilution of the core values of integrity and industry within the organisation.
The Vineet Narain judgment was another turning point – through this well-meaning judgment, officers on deputation, at SP level and above, would now be selected by a committee headed by the CVC, from a panel proposed by the CBI. Officers with no previous CBI experience were paratrooped into the agency, at the cost of officers with past CBI experience.
The original organisational culture came in the way of attracting officers from the state police, where perks were far superior to the CBI. An inspector of state police would not prefer a deputation as deputy superintendent (DySP) as he would compare his perks with that of the CBI. In its anxiety to fill up mounting vacancies and cope with the abnormally high work load, the CBI was forced to dilute the stringent organisational criteria for officers on deputation and things began to slide.
In the early ’90s, the recruitment of direct sub-inspectors was transferred to a Staff Selection Commission. Officers low in the combined merit list now got into the CBI – compounded CBI constables, head constables, ASIs and clerks as sub inspector being inducted through limited competitive exams. Subsequently, in the name of recruiting talent from across the department, officers from income tax, central excise, paramilitary forces and banks were inducted. They came into the organisation with their own norms.
The Supreme Court’s judgment, directed that officers were selected by a committee headed by the CVC, from a panel proposed by the CBI. Credit: PTI/Ravi Choudhary
Unanimous opinion on sensitive cases
Increasingly, an IO could be brow-beaten into following a particular line of investigation without committing it to writing, thereby ensuring unanimous opinion on sensitive cases from all levels and not allowing the facts of the case or the investigation to come in the way. This increasingly led to the arrest of accused persons at the drop of the hat. Then followed the misuse of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the omnibus definition of criminal misuse of official position, to suit the convenience of the officers and the climate of the day.
The defective induction process ushered in a cult of ever-obliging officers from different streams. Alongside the internal erosion, the organisation was also disturbed by certain indiscretions of the CBI leadership in the late ’70s and late ’80s – yet the organisation could re-establish itself as a premier agency by virtue of its in-built strength.
Also Read: Exclusive: CBI Director Alok Verma’s Responses to CVC Put Modi Government in the Dock
Once that in-built strength is weakened, however, in an organisation with sweeping powers, it becomes extremely vulnerable and susceptible to manipulation and conspiracies. They can even cause it to implode. This is what has happened. There is no point blaming politicians alone– everyone responsible has to share the blame for letting the CBI drift from its core values.
The need of the hour is to rebuild the CBI as an institution with a strong adequately empowered leader with proven integrity, who understands the ethos of the agency, and has sufficient independence, authority and tenacity to reposition the old strong organisational culture. This will require the unanimous support of the bureaucracy and political setup. This mess could take decades to clean up.
K. Saleem Ali is a former IPS officer of Tripura cadre and served the CBI in various capacities, retiring as special director. He was also director-general of police, Tripura.