Recently state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Wes Bengal have withdrawn “general consent” to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct raids and investigation. These states are accusing the centre for misusing the powers of CBI.

About general consent and related concerns

CBI is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act that makes consent of a state government mandatory for conducting investigation in that state.
CBI has jurisdiction only over central government departments and employees and it can investigate a case involving state only after getting permission from respective state government.
“General consent” is normally given to help the CBI seamlessly conduct its investigation into cases of corruption against central government employees in the concerned state.
Almost all states have given such consent. Otherwise, the CBI would require consent in every case. Now as these states have withdrawn ‘general consent’, CBI will not be able to register any fresh case involving a central government official or a private person stationed in these two states without getting case-specific consent. Although CBI still has the power to investigate old cases registered when general consent existed.
However, withdrawal of consent will only bar the CBI from registering a case within the jurisdiction of Andhra and Bengal. The CBI could still file cases in Delhi and continue to probe people inside the two states.

History of States Defiance

This is however not the first instance when general consent by a state has been withdrawn. The states of Nagaland, Sikkim, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka have done it in the past. In 1998, the Janata Dal-led government of J H Patel in Karnataka had withdrawn general consent. This general consent wasn’t renewed for eight long years and CBI had to virtually close down its office.
Misuse of the CBI to settle political scores has largely been responsible for the state governments’ opposition to enacting a Central law for the CBI. But, unless the CBI is brought under a statute, it will be impossible to make it truly accountable for its actions and inactions.

CBI should be independent and insulated

The CBI is still functioning under the authority vested by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act formed before independence and there is no law governing the objectives and manner of its working. So, in order to make it independent there is a need to bring in a law mentioning specifically the jurisdiction, the objectives, the procedures to be adopted and the methodology to be adopted and how it should report, where it should report, in what manner, how the director should be selected, etc.
CBI director should have a fixed tenure of four years. Also, the system of deputation in the CBI should be dispensed with because if you send people on deputation for five-six years or even 10 years with the prospect of the man having to go back to the state where he came from for the deputation, he has to live with them for the next 10-15 years and therefore he will never be strong enough to carry out investigation in cases affecting the big shots of the state because he has to ensure that he will not be victimised.

CBI should be bifurcated into an anti-corruption body and a national crime bureau. The latter should be entrusted with all matters pertaining to criminal offences with national and inter-national ramifications. The present CBI, with its charter confined to anti-corruption cases, should continue to be under the Ministry of Personnel while the national crime bureau should be placed under the MHA.
CBI should also be brought fully under the Right to Information law, with a stipulation that no information pertaining to any on-going investigation can be made available, but that all information pertaining to cases which were withdrawn, or cases which were closed, or were dismissed by the court would be made available to the people. Such a social audit will go a long way in making both these institutions fully accountable.