New Delhi, August 2
The government today rejected most of CBI’s demands for making it an autonomous investigation agency, contending that “authority without accountability will be draconian,” particularly for the investigation agency which, like the police, had the power to arrest, seize and raid, besides keeping the accused in confinement.

“In fact, there have been instances in the past where allegations of extortion and bribery leading to coloured investigation have emerged against some CBI officials. An external Accountability Commission would only help in furthering the integrity of investigation,” the Centre said in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court.

“The government works on systems of checks and balances and builds adequate safeguards so that scope for misuse and arbitrary action is minimised. The internal vigilance mechanism as proposed by the CBI would not be in a position to deliver such a protection,” it argued.

The external Accountability Commission proposed by the government would comprise judicial members with “impeccable integrity and judicious temperament with many years of experience” besides the Central Vigilance Commissioner. Also, the complainants would have to first approach the CBI Director. Therefore, the reservations of the CBI on an accountability commission “are not tenable and without any basis,” it said.

The government also rejected the CBI’s proposals for a three-year assured tenure for its Director, instead of two years, and an independent authority for according sanction to investigate and prosecute accused officials.

The present two-year tenure was in line with the assured terms for top government functionaries and the SC order in the Vineet Narain case. Further, “it is the administrative ministry which is in the best position for according approval for investigation or inquiry within the shortest possible time limit. This should 
not be substituted by a committee as proposed by the CBI Director.”

The Centre turned down CBI’s demand for vesting its Director with the power to initiate disciplinary action against even Group-A officers as it would be against settled principles of administration. “An all powerful Director CBI without adequate checks and balances would not be consonant with settled Constitutional principles and would always carry the risk of potential misuse and may not be conducive to fearless and independent functioning of the organisation at all levels.”

The government has filed the affidavit in compliance with an SC order passed while hearing a bunch of PILs over the alleged irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. The autonomy of CBI cropped up in the case after it came to light that the CBI had shared the status report on its investigations with the then Law Minister 
Ashwani Kumar, who had to subsequently quit on the issue. Following this, the CBI had submitted its proposals for making it autonomous and the SC asked the government to respond to the suggestions.

On CBI’s demand for greater financial autonomy, the Centre said the agency’s director should not be given power more than that of the Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force.