Long arm of law catches up with the high and mighty

The significance of a CBI examination a few days ago of West Bengal Governor MK Narayanan at the Kolkata Raj Bhavan in the AgustaWestland chopper sale case cannot be overstated. Whether such an event would have been allowed to take place a decade ago is beyond conjecture. What has made the difference is the stern message from the apex court on several recent occasions that no one, however mighty he might be, is above the law. It is irrelevant that the solicitor general of the previous regime and the present attorney general have differed on the subject. The latter has apparently overturned the former's stand that a governor cannot be questioned even as a witness as long as he or she holds office. My own view is that as long as a governor is not asked about something which he had done as a governor in a past assignment or in the current one, he is on par with any ordinary citizen. Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not make a distinction and does not afford any immunity to the holder of a Constitutional position.

Narayanan's examination should send shivers down the spines of those who are smug in the belief that they can hide in the comforts of the Raj Bhavan, away from the glare of law-enforcement agencies. The fact that a few of them have refused to quit despite feelers from the home ministry proves that they have either a thick hide or have scant respect for the niceties of political convention.

This, by the way, brings me to the subject of improprieties committed by a governor while in office. Isn't it time to bring them also under the lens? I know of at least one worthy against whom rumours were swirling around about appointments to universities under his chancellorship. These were probably just rumours. But then, wasn't an investigation warranted?

Another tumultuous event pertained to the elevation of former solicitor-general Gopal Subramanium to the apex court. Press reports speak of his losing the race because of adverse IB/CBI reports. For this reason Gopal's supporters have assailed the two Central organisations saying they had based their reports on half-truths. Without suggesting that the two bureaus are omniscient or are manned by saints, my stand is that the chiefs of these two organisations appointed by the previous government would hardly have allowed themselves to be bullied into tendentious reporting. They had merely placed certain facts before the Executive, which the latter used to block Subramanium's appointment. My firm belief is that neither the DBI nor DCBI can get away with false, incorrect or inadequate reporting, especially when it is a question of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. Apart from ethics, it is an instinct of self-preservation that should impel the heads of such critical agencies to resort to totally responsible reporting. Where the facts are fuzzy, they would say so in as many words. To assail them would be unfair. To avoid such controversies in the future, will it not be fair to every candidate, if the apex court were to directly interact with the IB/CBI and get a report on every person recommended for appointment to the hallowed bench? This would save the Executive from any odium, as also deny it an opportunity to give tendentious reports against a candidate whom it does not fancy.

Finally, it is sad that serious allegations have been levelled against a former CBI chief. These are under investigation. But then, how does one ensure a fair probe? Is it not necessary to ask him to step down from his current charge in the UPSC till he is cleared? Here again, as in the case of governors, I hope Constitutional provisions will not be quibbled into protecting him.

The writer is a former CBI Director