Mayawati asset case ‘Investigation is complete’

Sanjay Kapoor Delhi

While giving a clean chit to the UPA government for no scam or scandal, as his three-year term comes to an end, CBI Director Vijay Shankar talks to Hardnews on rampant corruption in PDS, poverty alleviation programmes, defence deals, Nithari, kidney racket, Dawood Ibrahim and Rajiv Gandhi's assassination

CBI was granted functional autonomy by the Supreme Court after the hawala judgment. During your term in office, did you feel free or restrained by the government?

CBI has always enjoyed functional autonomy, even before the Vineet Narain judgment. The investigation of cases is conducted under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws whereby investigating officers and their superior officers are free to conduct the investigation without any interference. The result of the investigation is reported to the Competent Court under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a sequel to the Vineet Narain case, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, 2003, provides a fixed tenure for director, CBI, for two years, who is appointed on the recommendation of a committee headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). The CVC also exercises general superintendence over CBI for the Prevention of Corruption Act cases.

As for the role of the government in the context of CBI's functioning, the government has financial, administrative and legal powers such as budgetary provisions, to appeal in matters of acquittal. The government is accountable to Parliament and therefore appropriate exercise of power cannot be wished away. Considering the responsibilities and expectations from CBI, there is a need to empower CBI director further, for which appropriate action has been initiated.

There seems to be a manifest deficit of trust between CBI and the people on some key cases, as witnessed in the Nithari scandal. How do you account for that?

The Nithari case is under trial and thus sub-judice. It may, however, be said that it is not surprising that the media and the common man have various questions to ask. The cases are not only the most heinous but also unique in the history of crime. In this context, it would suffice to say that CBI investigation was conducted in the most transparent, objective and fair manner. As there are no eye witnesses, forensic scientists and other experts have contributed in a significant manner. CBI is here to assist the trial court for establishing the truth and enabling the process of law to punish those responsible. Sustaining the truth in challenging circumstances is always difficult.

Do you find it unusual that there are no witnesses left in the case? The last one apparently died under mysterious circumstances in Kolkata. Do you think CBI's witness-protection programme is inadequate?

It is not true that there are no witnesses left in the Nithari case. The cases have been investigated with highest professional standards and the truth shall prevail during the trial. Witness protection programme is a very complex issue. It is yet to take off in India.

What do you think of the involvement of the Nanda family in defence deals? Could you detail how these arms dealers are subverting the defence procurement process? Did you find any evidence of the defence ministry procuring substandard weapon systems due to the presence of middlemen?

CBI is currently investigating defence procurement cases in some of which the role of middlemen has emerged very clearly. Our investigations have disclosed that middlemen use money power to influence persons involved in sensitive decision-making processes of defence procurements.