Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 161

CVC's role in regard to the CBI's functioning:

As earlier observed it is necessary to ensure accountability of CBI's functioning specially considering the obtaining misgivings about its functioning. While government shall remain answerable for the CBI's functioning, it appears necessary to introduce a visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for over-viewing CBI's working.

In this context, the committee recommends that the Central Vigilance Commissioner should be entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence over CBI's functioning. If this is accepted by government, the CBI should report to the Central Vigilance Commissioner (as per format and other details to be formalised) about the cases taken up for investigation; progress of investigations; cases in which chargesheets were filed and subsequently withdrawn from the court against the recommendations of the Director CBI, etc.

The Central Vigilance Commissioner would also review the progress of all cases moved by CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants pending with the competent authorities, specially those in which sanction was delayed or refused. Through such superintendence, the Central Vigilance Commissioner should be made responsible for the efficient functioning of CBI. In this context, it would be necessary to take an early view regarding the conferment of statutory status on the CVC.

The committee recommend that CBI should regularly bring out an annual report and, further, that the CVC's annual report should contain a separate section on the CBI's functioning. Debate in the Parliament and elsewhere will, the committee feels, generate suggestions for the continuing fine-tuning of the guidelines for CBI's functioning. Such a measure in our opinion, would ensure transparency in the CBI's functioning and enable the Parliament and the general public to know more about its activities. The committee proposes that the recommendations for the appointment of Director, CBI should come from a committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner with Home Secretary and Secretary (Personnel) as members.

This selection committee should also hear the views of the incumbent Director for evolving the best choice. This committee should draw up a panel of IPS officers on the basis of their seniority, integrity, experience in investigation and anti-corruption work in the State and the Centre. The final selection should be made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) from the panel recommended by the selection committee. If none among the panel is found suitable, the reasons thereof need to be suitably recorded and the committee should be asked to draw up a fresh panel.

We are of the view that selection of officers in the CBI upto the level of Joint Director should be entrusted to a similar Board comprising the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Home Secretary and the Secretary (Personnel) with Director, CBI providing the necessary inputs. Extension of tenure or premature repatriation of officers upto the level of Joint Director should also be left for final decision of this committee. The recommendations of the Director CBI should be given due weightage and the reasons for non-acceptance thereof would need to be recorded by the committee.

Central Vigilance Commission and Allied Bodies Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys