Who caged the CBI?
Just as the skirmishes between CBI and the centre continue, the issue has now turned into a clash between the states and centre Andhra and West Bengal have now insisted that the CBI officers have to seek permission from states before entering them on work. States have to give permission to Delhi Police Establishment to carry out searches or investigation, in any state. If this permission does not come through, the CBI cannot enter the states. Now both states have withdrawn the permission they had given earlier. If more states join this bandwagon, it wouldn’t be too unexpected a move. It is noteworthy that both the states are not ruled by the BJP. Centre has criticized this move by the states. It has mocked that by closing doors on the CBI, states have proved that they are indeed corrupt. But who brought CBI to this sorry state? The central government has to do some introspection on this.
CBI is often criticized as a caged parrot that obeys the commands of its masters in power in Delhi. It works to please any party that rules the country. Any party that assumes power at the centre will most certainly use the CBI to fulfil its agenda. The previous UPA government is no exception either. But there is a limit to this. Central government had never gotten down to fight with the CBI so openly. Its credibility was never brought under a magnifying glass of suspicion or trust. CBI officers had never revolted against the Centre. CBI has lost its credibility after Modi assumed power and the central government is directly interfering with its functioning after Modi became the PM. This has reached such a boiling point that CBI chiefs have stood out openly against the government. Today, the future of CBI is in the hands of Supreme Court.
Under such circumstances, the government can use the officers who have lost trust, to fulfil its own agenda. Hence states cannot be blamed for denying permission to CBI in their jurisdiction. In the past, opposition parties would blame the central government if the latter interfered with its functioning. Some would use this as a pretext to defend their false integrity too. Hence all the accusations within the CBI cannot be taken at face value. But the person who has raised concerns about CBI’s functioning is none other than the headman himself. Government should have taken this opportunity to smoothen the functioning of the agency. This was the duty of ruling dispensation. But, the government acted in haste and sent both warring officers on leave. There are rumours that Rakesh Asthana was working in favour of the central government. He was the mole that would inform the central government about the activities of CBI and the cases that were being investigated. This was the sole reason Asthana was appointed in the agency.
These charges were not made by some opposition party or leader, but by the CBI chairman himself. Instead of checking the veracity of his claims, the government acted in haste and sent both officers on leave. The main reason behind sending Varma in leave was that he had taken Rafale deal investigation very seriously and was putting together major evidences pertaining to the case. The new incharge officer is directly in favour of BJP since long. This is no secret either that his family transferred money to BJP in the past. Also, the Supreme Court has also clipped his wings. He cannot take any decision or discharge duties on his own. Central government may well use every opportunity to engage every favourable officer within the CBI to meet its own requirements. General elections are fast approaching and economic decisions have created an atmosphere of intolerance among people. BJP is trying to face this elections with Ram Mandir as a moot issue. Secular forces are coming together under a single banner with Chandrababu Naidu in the lead.
He is trying to bring others together too by way of talking to them. The Modi government that has used CBI to silence its detractors may not hesitate to unleash the same strategy on dissenting leaders of states and even the states are apprehensive about this. How can the CBI, which has a case pending against itself, carry out raids or arrest leaders when its own credibility is at stake? The central government that feels states should not interfere with CBI’s functioning could have allowed the Rafael investigation to complete as well? Sending Varma who was investigating complaints against Asthana on leave is to interfere with the CBI functioning, isn’t it?
Hence the states to maintain a distance between the CBI and themselves, till the accusations and counter accusations reach a logical conclusion is a safe thing to do. It’s even justified. The Supreme Court needs to reinstate the faith of people on CBI by erasing the blots on its functioning right now and return the trust and glory of a premier investigating agency, sooner than later.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC to hear plea challenging blocking of YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea seeking quashing of an order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13.
The apex court on May 5 sought responses from the Centre and others on the plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of digital news platform '4PM', which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh.
The plea claimed that the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing "vague" grounds of "national security" and "public order".
As per the top court's cause list for May 13, the plea is slated to come up for hearing before a bench of justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The plea claimed that the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information.
The petition, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The plea also contended that it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard.
"'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said.
The action was not only ultra vires the parent statute, but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press, the plea said.
"The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information," it said.
The plea sought a direction to the Centre to produce the order with "reasons" and "records", if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel.
It also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Rule 16 mandates strict confidentiality regarding all requests, complaints and actions taken under the rule.
The plea also sought striking down and/or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing a final order.
It said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case.
