'CBI cannot become a stumbling block to economic reforms'

New CBI director Vijay Shankar in an exclusive interview to Hardnews

Sanjay Kapoor Delhi

Vijay Shankar, the new director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is clear about what the investigating agency will not do. "We would not be used as a stumbling block in the ongoing economic reforms process or to subvert the decision-making process in poverty alleviation programmes and in strategic areas of defence and infrastructure sectors."

Known for his tough and no-nonsense ways, Shankar showed awareness of how long-drawn investigations could become a source of harassment for individuals and companies. For many years, some large corporations were kept away from bidding for contracts as they were under an unending CBI probe. Companies like Airbus Industrie had to wait for a formal closure of their case, before they could chase the lucrative Indian Airlines deal. Shankar is thinking big. He wants CBI to be the most "visible and effective instrument of the government's endeavour towards good governance."

A lover of Urdu poetry, Shankar is going through all the high profile cases that did not get the approval of the courts. "This is to learn from them". He refused to comment if the CBI was thinking of reopening some of these cases.

Excerpts from his first interview after Shankar took over as CBI Director: 

Please accept our congratulations for becoming the Director of CBI. You have taken over at a time when corruption scandals have rocked the polity. How do you plan to countenance this malaise?

The CBI has a limited role in this context as it functions within the parameters of existing laws and regulations. The scandals that have been exposed in the visual media pertain to elected representatives and involve far larger issues that have to be dealt with by the parliament, political parties and by the people of this country. Having said that, we feel that once the cases are detected then exemplary punishment should be meted out.

There is a dominant view that CBI fails to nail the guilty when it comes to corruption in high places. Sometimes they cannot get quality evidence and in other cases they fail to get corroborative evidence — as happened with the Jain Hawala scandal and in other cases — the matter keeps dragging in the courts endlessly. What is the CBI doing to correct the impression?

The perception that the CBI fails to nail people in high places is a very serious matter. I fully agree that the CBI needs to correct this perception by becoming more efficient, prompt in its disposal of cases, improving standards of investigation and becoming accessible in a transparent manner. There is a flip side to it too. CBI's role is confined to investigation and it has a limited role during prosecution. Therefore, this perception needs to be addressed together by all elements comprising the criminal justice system. In fact, there is an urgent need to have a fresh look at our laws, particularly the procedural aspects. The CBI also has to perform much better. Also, an internal study indicates that the major portion of the delay is due to stay orders and interlocutory petitions. Action, therefore, is needed from the side of judiciary also. There are vacancies in courts and in the ranks of prosecutors. We are trying to ensure that there is no adjournment on behalf of prosecution. 

After you took over as director, have you made an attempt to figure out what went wrong with some of the high profile cases and why they did not get a favourable verdict? 

I have already started the process of learning from the cases handled by the CBI in the past. I am trying to figure out what went wrong with our investigations — such as gaps in the probe. We have drawn a list of major cases over the last three years that were not countenanced favourably by the court. We have tried to find out what went wrong with our investigations.   

I have had a brainstorming session with my officers to figure out how we should countenance the Right to Information Act and how it would impact the organisation. I am also trying to explore how the CBI can think big as it is the most visible and effective instrument of government's endeavor towards good governance.

In some cases of political corruption, it is possible to see the hand of the government guiding the course of investigation. Refusal of the government to grant permission to the CBI in filing a special leave petition (SLP) in the Bofors case after the High Court had thrown out the case or the other case pertaining to Mayawati's involvement in the Taj Corridor scam. What are your views on this and what is the status of these cases?

I am afraid this has not been my experience during the period that I have been with the CBI. There are question marks with regard to probity standards in political circles and therefore it is of utmost importance that CBI investigates such high profile cases with as much efficiency as possible in a prompt and transparent manner. 

There are a number of cases where investigation continues for many years. These pending investigations are used for harassing individuals and blacklisting companies. Till a couple of years ago, even Airbus Industrie had to suffer a similar fate. How many cases are still pending with the CBI, and how many in your reckoning, deserved to be closed?

If the CBI cannot investigate cases promptly and efficiently in the minimum possible timeframe, then it leads to harassing individual companies. Therefore, the CBI has to find ways and means to improve its track record of disposal of cases. CBI cannot become a stumbling block in the ongoing process of economic reforms. Also, it cannot be used to subvert government decision-making processes in poverty alleviation programmes and in strategic areas of defense and infrastructure.

One sees a growing trend of state governments handing over cases of corruption to the CBI. Do you think there is a case for changing the mandate of the CBI and turning it into a federal agency on the lines of the FBI?

State governments handing over cases of corruption to CBI is within the precincts of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act and is not a new phenomenon. I do not see the case for changing the existing mandate of the CBI. 

Now you have a right to information law in place. Do you think this would help in the efficiency of an investigating agency or mar it? What happens if the documents show inadequate investigation?

There is a foolproof mechanism in the CBI for reviewing and monitoring investigations to guard against infirmities. In any case, entire records of investigations and allied documents are placed before the court and the CBI's efforts are directed with only the judicial scrutiny in view. Hence the Right to Information act may not alter the functioning of the CBI.

The nature of crime and investigation has changed in the last decade or so. Now the Internet has become a major tool for criminals. Does the CBI have the wherewithal to counter net-driven crimes?

The CBI does have a cyber-crime investigating cell with a nominal strength of eight investigating officers. This, however, is considered insufficient in tackling the large number of complaints regarding cyber-crime. Another constraint is the fact that under the Information Technology Act, only officers of the rank of DSP and above can investigate cyber-crimes. Hence, the cell needs to be beefed up with more manpower and logistic support. We are taking the necessary steps.

The problem of counterfeit currency is really big. Are these currency notes sourced from within or without? What is the extent of the spread of bad money and what is the CBI doing about it? 

Analysis of the data collected from various police organisations indicates the source of counterfeit currency to be both from within and outside the country. On the basis of the seizures, counterfeiting activity is prominently noticed in Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. The source of smuggled fake currency is said to be Pakistan. The UAE, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Thailand are being used as transit points.