How about Leaving the CBI Alone?

Home Minister Chidambaram’s red card on arbitrary transfers of police officers.

Home Minister P Chidambaram doesn’t want police officers to be transferred too frequently. State governments make footballs of them by doing that, he says. Speaking at the annual conference of state directors general of police on internal security, Chidambaram used rather strong words, unlike his predecessor Shivraj P Patil who preferred strong perfumes and sharp creases to his suits, to drive home the point. “It is a matter of deep regret that many police officers have been reduced to a football, to be kicked in here and there, from one post to another, without regard to the damage done to the job as well as the officer,” Chidambaram said in his opening remarks at the three-day meet of state police chiefs, as the latter listened in silence.

“I ask you to search your hearts and answer the question, what is the average length of tenure of a district superintendent of police? What is the average length of tenure of a station house officer? Why do you remain silent when arbitrary postings and transfers are made by the state government?” he asked of the gathering. “Is it not your duty, as the head of the state police, to raise your voice not only on behalf of your officers but also on behalf of the people that you are duty bound to protect? As one famous judge said, ‘When there is a duty to speak, silence is culpable’.”

Fair enough. Frequent transfers and postings do disrupt work. Police officers who do not obey their political masters are moved out and replaced by the pliable, while policing suffers.

But then, let us start at the top. Successive governments at the Centre have been accused of using the CBI to meet their own political objectives, and not just by the Opposition. In 2009, the CBI—during the previous tenure of the UPA Government—withdrew the Red Corner notice against Ottavio Quattrochi in the Bofors case and filed a second closure report against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 Delhi riots case. During the UPA’s previous term, the CBI’s response in the courts on cases against Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav depended on their proximity or lack of it to the Congress.

Read what another famous judge has said on this. In April this year, former chief justice of India JS Verma wrote, ‘It is too much of a coincidence that in sensitive matters the outcome of the CBI’s investigation invariably depends on the political equation of the accused with the ruling power, and it changes without compunction with the change in that equation.’ Justice Verma  had delivered a judgment in the Hawala case in 1997, insulating the CBI from political interference and these words coming from him should also carry some meaning for the political class, particularly for the Government in power. If the centre wants policing and investigations in the states not to be influenced by politics, it should lead by example.

About The Author

Jatin Gandhi

Jatin Gandhi has covered politics and policy for over a decade now for print, TV and the web. He is Deputy Political Editor at Open.