Freeing the parrot

Govt cannot brazen out Supreme Court's observations

The Supreme Court's observations on the Central Bureau of Investigation's affidavit regarding alterations made to the status report on its investigation into coal-block allocations were not as specific and stringent as they could have been. The Court chose not to view it directly as contempt the way it had seen it in a 1997 case on hawala transactions, where the apex court had demanded that the CBI not share information with those who could be an accused in the case. But the broad tenor of the Court's observations yesterday was to highlight how the "heart of the CBI report was changed on the suggestions of government officials". There were thus sharp questions on why the CBI should be sharing its findings with those it might be investigating. The court did not entirely spare the law minister Ashwani Kumar either, questioning if the law minister asking to see the report was legally permissible. It appears the Court holds the CBI primarily responsible for allowing its independence to be called into question, and repeating what the government wishes it to say - memorably comparing the agency to a "caged parrot". However, the tongue-lashing that the SC gave the CBI and the government's law officers - who have been caught in flagrantly misleading the Court - should warn the government that this is not a crisis it can afford to ignore. The resignations of Mr Kumar and of the Attorney General are to be expected. The government cannot brazen it out for much longer.

The Court also addressed itself to the central question of the CBI's investigation, making explicit a threat that it had earlier made implicitly - that if the government does not legislate proper independence for the CBI, the SC will step in and do something. This is a warning that the government cannot afford to overlook. There would be legitimate concerns about an unaccountable super-cop, but the situation is such that the government must work post-haste on legislative safeguards for the CBI against political interference. Naturally, controls for the CBI will have to be worked in to any solution, but it is clear that the current system is not working and that the SC's patience, like that of the public, is at an end. The SC on this occasion chose to drag former CBI DIG Ravi Kant Mishra back from the Intelligence Bureau to head the investigation into coal-block allocations.

Politically, the Court's strictures could not have been worse; the SC has found impropriety in the actions of both the law minister and of the bureaucrats of the coal ministry and the prime minister's office. Before the SC spoke, the prime minister said in Parliament that he was "seized of the issue" and that "action would be taken". That action should include a clear accounting of guilt, as well as the dismissal of the law minister and the Attorney General. And, finally, a draft for statutory independence of the CBI must be prepared.