Answer: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier investigating police agency in India. It is not only a premier anti-corruption investigative agency but also has experience of handling high profile conventional crimes, economic offences, banking frauds and frauds with international linkages. The CBI is governed by The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE) Act, 1946, and it must mandatorily obtain the consent of the state government concerned before beginning to investigate a crime in a state. The consent of the state government can be case-specific or general. General consent is usually given by states to help the CBI in seamless investigation of cases of corruption against central government employees in their states. This is consent by default, in the absence of which, the CBI would have to apply to the state government, in every case, and before taking even small actions. Traditionally, almost all states have given the CBI general consent. However, currently nine states have withdrawn consent to the CBI on the grounds that the CBI is used for political interests and vendetta. This tussle between the CBI and States has created an impasse as around 150 requests for sanction to investigate by the CBI are pending with such state governments since 2018. The Supreme Court has referred to the situation as ‘undesirable’. It has been argued that this also threatens the spirit of cooperative federalism in India in the following manner:

• Under the Seventh Schedule, ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects under the Constitution, conferring exclusive domain to the state to make laws regarding the same. However, the CBI continues to carry out its functions as a Central Government investigative agency. This overlap of functioning and jurisdiction with local police forces cause recurrent federal issues.
• A fallout of it is that the CBI has not been able to start a probe in over Rs. 21,000 Crores worth of bank fraud cases in want of consent by five states in the last three years.
• It has led to widening of trust deficit between the Center and states and weakening an important central agency, making it incapable of coordinating on vital common matters.

In 2013, the CBI came under harsh criticism by one of the Supreme Court judges, who referred to it as a “caged parrot” and “its master’s voice” due to political interference in the CBI inquiry on the allocation of coalfield licences. It has been argued that when different political parties form governments at the Center and states, often their interests don’t align and the CBI is used as a political tool in such instances. Therefore, the concerns of states governments also need to be looked into along with ensuring that the CBI conducts all its investigations in a free, fair and impartial manner as per the law. Following steps can be taken in this regard:

• As observed by the Madras High Court, the CBI Director should be given similar powers as that of the Secretary to the Government of India. Also, he should directly report to the Minister/Prime Minister without going through the Department of Personnel and Training.
• The central investigation agency “should be made more independent” like the Election Commission of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Madras High Court also directed the government to “consider and take a decision for enactment of a separate Act giving statutory status with more powers and jurisdiction to CBI at the earliest”.

This federal impasse is a worrying development. Strong federal agencies are in national interest because big crimes often straddle state and national borders and state agencies may not have resources or jurisdiction to thwart such offenses. Therefore, it would be in India’s interest to protect CBI from political influence and interference.