#dnaEdit: Parrot disappoints

The Supreme Court’s direction to CBI director Ranjit Sinha to keep off the 2G spectrum scam case has rendered his continuation in the post untenable. It is immaterial that Sinha’s stint ends in 12 days; whether he had a longer tenure left or not, the top court of the land has lost confidence in his ability to discharge his duties without fear or favour. What damned Sinha was CBI special public prosecutor (SPP) Anand Grover’s report pointing out that three instances lend credibility to the suspicions against Sinha. Grover listed the visits of those linked to the 2G spectrum scam to his official residence, the attempt to get the CBI to voice the stance of the Reliance ADA Group (ADAG), and the delay in filing the Aircel-Maxis chargesheet.

In August, dna reported that former SPP UU Lalit had vehemently opposed Sinha’s interpretation that Clause 8 of the Unified Service Access Licence guidelines, which forbids a company from substantial equity holding in more than one licensee company in the same service area, was not violated as ADAG had already sold Swan Telecom to Shahid Balwa when Swan won 2G licences. The CBI’s chargesheet in the 2G scam had held that Swan Telecom was owned by ADAG when it applied for the licences and had thus violated Clause 8. Then in September, dna unveiled the visitor register at Sinha’s official residence which indicated that ADAG officials, coalgate scam accused and meat exporter Moin Qureshi who is under the I-T department scanner had visited Sinha multiple times. Sinha’s defence was that there was no illegality and the meetings helped him arrive at a better understanding of the cases. However, his actions which appear to favour ADAG, and the closure reports filed in the coal scam, undermine this defence.

Sinha’s actions — he earlier shared a confidential draft status report in the coal scam with the then law minister Ashwani Kumar, prompting the Supreme Court to, memorably, coin the phrase “caged parrot”— may unwittingly lead the discourse on CBI autonomy in unchartered directions. The sketchy provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act governing the CBI prompted the SC to nudge the Centre to introduce legislation providing statutory cover and functional autonomy for the agency, a demand echoed by Sinha himself. In effect, this would have empowered the CBI director, but with Sinha’s conduct under scrutiny, the political executive’s stated position on autonomy may change. Interestingly, the DSPE Act has no provision even to remove a CBI director. Though the Lokpal Act permits suspending CBI officials for wrongdoing in cases monitored by it, the institution is yet to take shape.

Ultimately, what brought down Sinha was the inherent strength of the ad-hoc mechanism instituted in the 2G and coal scam cases. Because the Supreme Court monitored the investigations, vigilant petitioners like Prashant Bhushan intervened at crucial junctures to report malpractices and suspicious transfers of investigating officers. Moreover, the SC’s appointment of special prosecutors like Lalit and Grover allowed for an independent view of material on record, irrespective of the whims of investigators like Sinha. The Lokpal Act creates a separate prosecution wing for the Lokpal under a Director of Prosecution to separate it from the investigation wing. The same Act also created a separate Directorate of Prosecution in the CBI functioning under the overall control and supervision of the CBI director. But as the Sinha affair shows, this latter structure would fail to insulate prosecutors. The Lokpal Act’s provisions for continuous monitoring of CBI investigations and their separation from prosecution wings makes it an excellent alternative.