Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): Structure, Role, and Challenges in Fighting Corruption in India

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) stands as India's premier investigative agency, often referred to as the "Interpol of India" due to its role in coordinating investigations on behalf of Interpol member countries. Established to combat corruption and serious crime, the CBI plays a crucial role in maintaining integrity in public life and upholding the rule of law. However, its journey has been marked by significant challenges, particularly concerning its autonomy and credibility.

1. Introduction: The Genesis and Evolution of the CBI

The origins of the Central Bureau of Investigation can be traced back to World War II, when a Special Police Establishment (SPE) was constituted in 1941 to investigate bribery and corruption related to war procurements. Post-war, the need for a dedicated central agency to address corruption among Central Government employees led to the enactment of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act in 1946. The SPE was formalized under this Act, with its functions expanded to cover all departments of the Government of India.

The formal establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation, as we know it today, came in 1963. This was based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964), which highlighted the necessity of a centralized agency to investigate serious crimes. Initially, the CBI was set up by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and later, the Ministry of Personnel took over its administrative responsibility.

Motto: "Industry, Impartiality, Integrity."

Vision: To combat corruption in public life, curb economic and violent crimes through meticulous investigation and prosecution, and to fight cyber and high-technology crimes.

2. Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework

It is crucial to understand that the CBI is not a statutory body and not a constitutional body. It derives its powers and jurisdiction primarily from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.

2.1. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

The DSPE Act, 1946, provides the legal framework for the CBI's establishment and functioning. Key provisions of this Act related to the CBI's powers and jurisdiction include:

• Section 5: Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special police establishment to other areas: This section allows the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the DSPE to any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area.
• Section 6: Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction: This is a pivotal section, stating that nothing in Section 5 enables any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State without the consent of the Government of that State.

This consent can be of two types:

• General Consent: A blanket consent given by a state to the CBI for investigating a certain category of cases within its territory. Once granted, the CBI is not required to seek fresh permission for every case falling under that category.
• Specific Consent: Required on a case-by-case basis when general consent is not in place or has been withdrawn.

Note on Suo Moto Powers: The CBI can suo moto take up investigations only in Union Territories. For investigations in a State, the Central Government can authorize the CBI only with the consent of the concerned State Government. However, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to order the CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the State.

2.2. Administrative Control and Superintendence

The CBI functions under the administrative control of the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public Grievances, Government of India, which falls under the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

However, for investigations of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, its superintendence vests with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), as per the CVC Act, 2003. This dual superintendence mechanism aims to provide a layer of oversight in anti-corruption cases.

3. Structure and Key Divisions of the CBI

The CBI is headed by a Director, typically an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer of the rank of Director General of Police. The Director is assisted by a Special Director, Additional Directors, Joint Directors, Deputy Inspector Generals, Superintendents of Police, and other police personnel, along with forensic scientists and law officers.

3.1. Appointment and Tenure of the Director

The appointment of the CBI Director has seen significant reforms aimed at enhancing the agency's independence. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, amended the DSPE Act, 1946, to introduce a high-level committee for the appointment of the CBI Director.

Appointment Committee for CBI Director:

• Prime Minister (Chairperson)
• Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the single largest opposition party if there is no recognized Leader of Opposition)
• Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI

The Director is appointed for a fixed tenure of two years, which can be extended by up to one year at a time, for a total of five years, as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021. This fixed tenure aims to provide stability and independence to the Director's role.

3.2. Organizational Structure (Divisions)

The CBI is organized into several specialized divisions to effectively handle diverse types of cases:

• Anti-Corruption Division: Investigates corruption-related offenses involving public officials, central government employees, Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), and bodies owned or controlled by the Government of India.
• Economic Offences Division: Deals with major financial scams, serious economic frauds, and crimes related to fake Indian currency notes, bank frauds, cybercrime, import/export and foreign exchange violations, and large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, and other contraband.
• Special Crimes Division: Investigates serious and organized crimes under the Indian Penal Code and other laws, often on requests from State Governments or orders from the Supreme Court and High Courts. This includes cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, kidnappings, and crimes committed by the mafia/underworld.
• Policy & Coordination Division: Handles administrative functions, policy matters, and coordination with various agencies.
• Directorate of Prosecution: Established by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, it is headed by a Director of Prosecution and is responsible for conducting the prosecution of cases.
• Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and other technical units: Provide forensic and technical support to investigations.

Conceptual Visual: CBI Organizational Structure

graph TD
    A[Director CBI] --> B(Special/Additional Directors)
    B --> C1(Joint Directors)
    C1 --> D1(Deputy Inspector Generals - DIGs)
    D1 --> E1(Superintendents of Police - SPs)
    E1 --> F1(Other Police Personnel)

    A --> G(Divisions)
    G --> G1[Anti-Corruption Division]
    G --> G2[Economic Offences Division]
    G --> G3[Special Crimes Division]
    G --> G4[Policy & Coordination Division]
    G --> G5[Directorate of Prosecution]
    G --> G6[Central Forensic Science Laboratory & Technical Units]

    H[Administrative Control (Ministry of Personnel, DoPT, PMO)] -- for general matters --> A
    I[Superintendence (Central Vigilance Commission)] -- for Prevention of Corruption Act cases --> A

    J[Appointment Committee] --> A
    J -- Recommends Director --> A

Explanation of the Diagram: This organogram illustrates the hierarchical structure of the CBI, with the Director at the apex, supported by various levels of officers. It also depicts the specialized divisions responsible for different types of crimes. Crucially, it highlights the dual administrative control: the overall administrative control by the Department of Personnel (under the PMO) and the specific superintendence by the Central Vigilance Commission for corruption cases. The appointment process for the Director by a high-powered committee is also shown.

4. Role in Combating Corruption in India

The CBI's primary mandate is to combat corruption in public life. Its functions are multifaceted and extend beyond just anti-corruption cases.

4.1. Key Functions:

• Investigation of Corruption Cases: The CBI investigates cases of bribery, corruption, and misconduct involving Central Government employees, Union Territories, and Public Sector Undertakings. It plays a crucial role in preventing corruption and maintaining integrity in government administration.
• Investigation of Economic and Fiscal Law Violations: This includes breaches of laws concerning export and import control, customs and central excise, income tax, foreign exchange regulations, and other major financial scams.
• Investigation of Serious Crimes: The CBI takes up serious crimes with national and international ramifications, especially those committed by organized gangs or professional criminals. These can include murder, kidnapping, and terrorism, often on referral from state governments or orders from higher courts.
• Coordination with Other Agencies: The CBI acts as the nodal police agency for India, coordinating investigations on behalf of Interpol member countries. It also coordinates activities of various anti-corruption agencies and State Police Forces across the country.
• Maintenance of Crime Statistics: The agency maintains comprehensive crime statistics and shares criminal information.

4.2. Types of Cases Handled by CBI:

The CBI broadly investigates cases under three main categories:

1. Anti-Corruption Crimes: Against public officials and employees of the Central Government, PSUs, etc., under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Economic Crimes: Major financial scams, frauds, cybercrimes, bank frauds, foreign exchange violations, and large-scale smuggling.
3. Special Crimes: Serious and organized crimes like assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, and those committed by extremists, often referred by states or ordered by courts.

5. Landmark Judgments and Legal Interpretations

The Supreme Court of India has played a critical role in defining the CBI's autonomy and powers, often through landmark judgments.

• Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997): This was a watershed judgment that sought to insulate the CBI from political interference. The Court laid down several guidelines to ensure the independence and impartiality of the CBI Director, including:

  • Fixed tenure of two years for the CBI Director.
  • Appointment of the Director by a high-powered committee (which later evolved into the present committee).
  • Measures to secure the tenure and transfer of the CBI Director to prevent arbitrary actions. This judgment famously led to the Supreme Court's observation that the CBI is a "caged parrot speaking in its master's voice" due to excessive political interference, a metaphor that continues to resonate.

• P. Venugopal vs. Union of India (2007): This case pertained to the CVC's superintendence over the DSPE. The Supreme Court clarified that the superintendence of the CVC under the CVC Act, 2003, extends to the DSPE in matters related to investigation of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

• Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI (2014): In this significant judgment, the Supreme Court declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act unconstitutional. Section 6A required prior approval of the Central Government to conduct an inquiry or investigation into an offense alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above. The Court held that this requirement diluted the independence of the CBI and created an impediment in combating corruption at higher levels of bureaucracy.

• Alok Kumar Verma v. Union Of India And Another (2019): This case further reinforced the independence of the CBI Director. The Supreme Court set aside orders that divested the then CBI Director, Alok Kumar Verma, of his powers and duties. The Court emphasized that such actions must adhere to the statutory requirements mandated by the CVC Act, 2003, and the DSPE Act, 1946, particularly the need for the appointment committee's consent.

• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (2024): In this recent case, the Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of West Bengal's suit against the Union regarding the CBI registering and investigating cases despite the revocation of its general consent. The Court reiterated that the CBI is under the administrative control of the Union Government and that a state's consent is generally required for CBI investigations within its territory, unless ordered by the Supreme Court or a High Court.

6. Challenges in Combating Corruption

Despite its crucial role, the CBI faces several deep-rooted challenges that impede its effectiveness and autonomy in combating corruption.

6.1. Political Interference and Lack of Autonomy:

This is perhaps the most persistent and widely criticized challenge. The Supreme Court's "caged parrot" remark perfectly encapsulates this issue.

• Government Control: The CBI functions under the administrative control of the Ministry of Personnel, which falls under the Prime Minister's Office. This administrative link, combined with the government's significant role in appointing senior officials (even with the committee), raises concerns about its independence.
• Manipulation of Senior Officers: Since many CBI officers are drawn from the Indian Police Service (IPS) on deputation, they remain dependent on the Central Government for their future postings and careers, making them susceptible to influence.
• Use as a Political Tool: Critics often allege that the CBI is used by the government of the day to target political opponents, coerce coalition partners, or cover up wrongdoings. This politicization leads to selective investigations and delayed conclusions, especially in high-profile cases involving influential individuals.

6.2. Limited Powers and Jurisdictional Issues:

• State Consent: As policing and law are State subjects under the Constitution, the CBI generally requires prior consent from state governments to conduct investigations within their territory. The withdrawal of "general consent" by several states significantly restricts the CBI's ability to investigate cases, especially corruption charges against Central employees within those states.
• Restricted Access: Prior approval of the Central Government is required for inquiry or investigation against Central Government employees of the level of Joint Secretary and above, which can be an obstacle in combating corruption at higher bureaucratic echelons.

6.3. Lack of Accountability and Transparency:

• Exemption from RTI Act: The CBI is exempted from the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which reduces public accountability and transparency in its functioning.
• Credibility Loss: Due to perceived political interference and alleged mismanagement or mishandling of sensitive cases (e.g., Bofors, Hawala scandal, Aarushi Talwar case), the CBI has faced a loss of public credibility.

6.4. Resource Constraints and Personnel Shortages:

• Acute Shortage of Personnel: The CBI often suffers from a significant shortage of officers, partly due to inefficient recruitment policies and a heavy reliance on deputation.
• Inadequate Investment: There is often inadequate investment in personnel training, modern equipment, and other support structures, hampering its effectiveness.
• Underutilization of Funds: Sometimes, even allocated funds are underutilized, affecting infrastructural development.

6.5. Delays in Investigations:

The CBI has been accused of enormous delays in concluding investigations, which can compromise the integrity of cases and lead to acquittals due to prolonged trials.

Comparison with Global Systems (Brief):

While a detailed comparison is beyond the scope of this section, it's worth noting that many countries have central investigative agencies (e.g., FBI in the US, Serious Fraud Office in the UK). A key difference often lies in their degree of statutory independence and insulation from executive influence. The challenges faced by the CBI, particularly political interference and jurisdictional limitations, are often less pronounced in agencies with stronger legal autonomy and dedicated cadres, although resource constraints and public trust issues can be universal.

7. Contemporary Developments and Proposed Reforms

Recognizing the challenges, various committees, commissions, and judicial pronouncements have suggested reforms to enhance the CBI's autonomy and efficiency.

7.1. Key Recommendations and Developments:

• Santhanam Committee (1962-64): Recommended the establishment of the CBI.
• L.P. Singh Committee (1978): Recommended enacting a "comprehensive central legislation to remove the deficiency of not having a central investigative agency with a self-sufficient statutory charter of duties and functions."
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) (2007): Suggested that "a new law should be enacted to govern the working of the CBI" to ensure its independence. It also recommended a new CBI Act specifying criminal culpability for government interference.
• Parliamentary Standing Committees (19th and 24th reports, 2007 & 2008): Recommended strengthening the CBI in terms of legal mandate, infrastructure, and resources.
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Amended the DSPE Act to establish the high-powered committee for the CBI Director's appointment, aimed at strengthening transparency and independence.
• Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 2021: Allowed for the extension of the CBI Director's tenure up to a total of five years, aiming for greater stability.
• Recent Parliamentary Committee Recommendations (145th report):
  • Independent Recruitment Framework: Suggested a CBI-specific exam (via SSC, UPSC, or a dedicated body) to create a permanent cadre and reduce reliance on deputation.
  • Lateral Entry: Recommended introducing lateral entry for specialists in cybercrime, forensics, financial fraud, and legal domains.
  • Separate Law for CBI: Advocated for enacting a separate law to grant the CBI wider investigative powers in cases affecting national security and integrity, potentially without requiring state consent (with state views taken into consideration).
  • Financial Autonomy: Ensuring financial independence for the CBI.
  • Case Management System: Maintain a centralized, publicly accessible database of cases and their progress.
  • Transparency: Publish case statistics and annual reports.

Conceptual Visual: Proposed Reforms for CBI

graph TD
    A[Challenges Faced by CBI] --> B1(Political Interference)
    A --> B2(Limited Powers/Consent Issue)
    A --> B3(Lack of Accountability/Transparency)
    A --> B4(Resource/Personnel Shortages)
    A --> B5(Investigation Delays)

    B1 --> C1(Fixed Tenure for Director - Achieved)
    B1 --> C2(Committee for Director Appointment - Achieved)
    B1 --> C3(New CBI Act with non-interference clause)
    B1 --> C4(Dedicated Cadre)

    B2 --> C5(Pan-India Jurisdiction/Amend DSPE Act Sec 6)
    B2 --> C6(Separate Law for National Security Cases without State Consent)

    B3 --> C7(RTI Applicability)
    B3 --> C8(Publicly Accessible Case Management System)
    B3 --> C9(Publish Annual Reports)

    B4 --> C10(Independent Recruitment Framework)
    B4 --> C11(Lateral Entry for Specialists)
    B4 --> C12(Increased Financial Allocation & Autonomy)

    B5 --> C13(Streamlined Legal Procedures)
    B5 --> C14(Enhanced Technology & Training)

    style A fill:#FFC,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style C1 fill:#9F9,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C2 fill:#9F9,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C3 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C4 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C5 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C6 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C7 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C8 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C9 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C10 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C11 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C12 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C13 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px
    style C14 fill:#CCF,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px

Explanation of the Diagram: This flowchart maps the challenges faced by the CBI to various proposed and implemented reforms. Green boxes indicate reforms that have largely been implemented (like fixed tenure and appointment committee), while blue boxes represent ongoing proposals or areas where further action is needed to fully address the challenge. It visually links specific issues to their potential solutions, offering a comprehensive overview of the reform agenda.

8. Conclusion: Towards an Uncaged Parrot?

The Central Bureau of Investigation, with its motto of "Industry, Impartiality, and Integrity," remains a vital institution in India's fight against corruption and serious crime. Its high conviction rate (65-70%) is comparable to the best investigative agencies globally. However, the persistent "caged parrot" perception, stemming from issues of political interference, limited autonomy due to its non-statutory status, and dependence on state consent, continues to plague its credibility.

Strengthening the CBI is crucial for ensuring effective governance and upholding the rule of law. The recommendations for a new comprehensive CBI Act, establishing a dedicated cadre of officers, ensuring financial autonomy, and granting pan-India jurisdiction, coupled with enhanced transparency and accountability mechanisms, are essential steps. Only through sustained political will and commitment to institutional independence can the CBI truly transform from a "caged parrot" into an "uncaged parrot," capable of flying freely in its pursuit of justice.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

A. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was established based on the recommendations of which committee? a) Sarkaria Commission b) Santhanam Committee c) Punchhi Commission d) Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC)

   Explanation: The CBI was established in 1963 based on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962–1964).

2. Under which Act does the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) derive its powers and jurisdiction? a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 c) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 d) Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003

   Explanation: The CBI is not a statutory body but derives its power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

3. Who among the following are members of the committee for the appointment of the CBI Director as per the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013? I. Prime Minister II. Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by CJI III. Union Minister of Home Affairs IV. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha

   a) I, II, and III only b) I, II, and IV only c) II, III, and IV only d) I, III, and IV only

   Explanation: The committee for the appointment of the CBI Director consists of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or leader of the single largest opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI.

4. For investigations of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) vests with: a) Department of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public Grievances b) Ministry of Home Affairs c) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) d) Supreme Court of India

   Explanation: While the CBI generally functions under the Department of Personnel, for investigations of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, its superintendence vests with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

5. Which of the following statements about CBI's jurisdiction is incorrect? a) CBI can suo moto take up investigation of offenses only in Union Territories. b) The Central Government can authorize CBI to investigate a crime in a State only with the consent of the concerned State Government. c) The Supreme Court and High Courts can order CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country without the consent of the State. d) CBI does not require any state consent to investigate corruption cases involving Central Government employees within a state.

   Explanation: Statement (d) is incorrect. The CBI generally requires prior consent from state governments to conduct investigations within their territory, even for corruption cases involving Central Government employees. This consent can be general or specific.

B. Scenario-Based Question

Scenario: The government of State 'X' has recently withdrawn its 'general consent' for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to operate within its territorial jurisdiction. Subsequently, a major multi-crore scam involving high-ranking state government officials is unearthed in State 'X', and there are demands for a CBI investigation.

Question: In this scenario, what are the possible legal avenues for the CBI to initiate an investigation into the scam in State 'X'? Discuss the implications of the state's withdrawal of general consent on the CBI's functioning.

Detailed Explanation:

1. Implications of Withdrawal of General Consent:

   • Legal Barrier: Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, mandates that the CBI cannot exercise its powers and jurisdiction in a state without the consent of the concerned state government.
   • Case-Specific Consent: When general consent is withdrawn, the CBI requires "specific consent" from the state government for each new case it intends to investigate. Given the current scenario involving state government officials, obtaining such specific consent would be highly improbable, as the state government might be reluctant to allow an investigation that could implicate its own officials.
   • Impact on Existing Cases: The withdrawal of general consent does not affect cases that were already registered and under investigation when the general consent was in force. The CBI can continue to probe these old cases. However, it renders the CBI redundant for new investigations concerning corruption charges against central employees and undertakings working within the territorial jurisdiction of that state, without fresh consent.

2. Possible Legal Avenues for CBI to Investigate: Despite the withdrawal of general consent, there are two primary legal avenues through which the CBI can still initiate an investigation into the scam in State 'X':

   • High Court or Supreme Court Order: The Supreme Court and High Courts have the inherent power to direct the CBI to investigate a crime anywhere in the country, even without the consent of the State Government. In this scenario, if a public interest litigation (PIL) is filed or the courts take suo moto cognizance of the scam, they can issue a directive for a CBI investigation. This route bypasses the state's requirement for consent and has been a common mechanism for the CBI to take up politically sensitive cases.
   • Re-issuance of Specific Consent by State: Although unlikely in a high-profile corruption case involving state officials, the state government could technically issue a specific consent for this particular case. However, this is politically sensitive and rare.

Conclusion for Scenario: In the given scenario, the most probable and effective legal avenue for a CBI investigation would be a directive from either the Supreme Court or the High Court of State 'X'. The withdrawal of general consent significantly curtails the CBI's operational freedom, underscoring the federal challenges and the agency's reliance on judicial intervention or state cooperation.

C. Match the Following

Match the following landmark judgments/committees with their key contributions/observations related to the CBI:

Answers:

1. B (The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption recommended the establishment of the CBI.)
2. C (In the Vineet Narain case, the Supreme Court famously referred to the CBI as a "caged parrot," and laid down guidelines for its functioning and Director's tenure.)
3. A (The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI, struck down Section 6A of the DSPE Act, which required prior government approval for investigating senior civil servants.)
4. D (The Alok Kumar Verma judgment upheld the fixed tenure and protected the CBI Director from arbitrary divestment of powers, reinforcing institutional autonomy.)

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

Section A: Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) derives its powers from which of the following? A) The Constitution of India B) The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 C) The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 D) A specific Parliamentary Act establishing CBI in 1963

Answer Explanation: C) The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The CBI was established by an executive resolution in 1963, based on the Santhanam Committee's recommendations. However, it derives its investigative powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, which was originally enacted for the Special Police Establishment. It is not a constitutional or statutory body created by a dedicated Act for CBI.

2. Which of the following committees recommended the establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)? A) Sarkaria Commission B) Narasimham Committee C) Santhanam Committee D) Kothari Commission

Answer Explanation: C) Santhanam Committee. The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962-64) recommended the establishment of the CBI to combat corruption effectively.

3. In which landmark case did the Supreme Court of India famously refer to the CBI as a "caged parrot speaking in its master's voice"? A) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala B) S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India C) Vineet Narain vs. Union of India D) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India

Answer Explanation: C) Vineet Narain vs. Union of India. While the "caged parrot" remark was specifically made in the context of the Coal Allocation Scam case, the Vineet Narain vs. Union of India judgment (1997) was the seminal case that led to significant directives aimed at insulating the CBI from political interference, addressing the very issue of its autonomy.

4. What is the current fixed tenure for the Director of the CBI, as per the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (as amended)? A) 1 year, extendable up to 3 years B) 2 years, extendable up to 5 years (1 year at a time) C) 3 years, extendable up to 6 years D) No fixed tenure, serves at the pleasure of the President

Answer Explanation: B) 2 years, extendable up to 5 years (1 year at a time). The Director of CBI has a fixed tenure of two years, which can be extended for up to three more years (one year at a time), for a maximum total tenure of five years. This was introduced as a reform to ensure the Director's independence.

5. When a state withdraws "general consent" for the CBI to investigate cases, what is the immediate implication? A) The CBI can no longer investigate any cases, even those already registered in that state. B) The CBI can initiate new investigations in that state only with case-specific consent from the state government. C) The CBI's jurisdiction automatically extends to all central government employees in that state without consent. D) The state police lose all powers to investigate corruption cases within the state.

Answer Explanation: B) The CBI can initiate new investigations in that state only with case-specific consent from the state government. When general consent is withdrawn, the CBI cannot register any new cases within the state without explicit, case-by-case approval from the state government. However, ongoing investigations that were registered before the withdrawal of general consent can continue. The Supreme Court or High Courts can still direct the CBI to investigate cases in such states without consent.

Section B: Scenario-Based Questions

1. Scenario: The CBI is investigating a large-scale bank fraud involving employees of a nationalized bank, which has its branches spread across several states. One particular state, 'X', recently withdrew its general consent for the CBI to operate within its jurisdiction.

Question: In this scenario, can the CBI continue its investigation and file charges against the bank employees located in State 'X'? Justify your answer with relevant legal provisions.

Answer Explanation: Yes, the CBI can generally continue its investigation and file charges against the bank employees located in State 'X' if the investigation was initiated before State 'X' withdrew its general consent. According to Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the CBI requires state consent to investigate within a state's territory. When a state withdraws "general consent," it means the CBI cannot initiate new investigations in that state without specific, case-by-case approval. However, cases that were already registered and under investigation prior to the withdrawal of general consent are usually allowed to continue. Furthermore, bank frauds involving nationalized banks fall under the purview of Central laws, and the CBI's primary jurisdiction over Central Government employees often overrides state-specific consent for crimes related to them. The Supreme Court has also ruled that CBI does not require state consent to register an FIR under a Central legislation against a Central government employee. If the fraud involves a central government employee or an agency of the central government, the CBI's jurisdiction is largely upheld regardless of state consent for existing cases.

2. Scenario: A highly sensitive murder case, believed to involve influential political figures, occurs in State 'Y'. The victim's family, distrusting the state police, files a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court, requesting a CBI investigation. State 'Y' has not granted general consent to the CBI.

Question: Can the High Court direct the CBI to investigate this case despite the state's lack of general consent? What implications would such a directive have for the principle of federalism?

Answer Explanation: Yes, the High Court (and similarly, the Supreme Court) can direct the CBI to investigate a case anywhere in the country without the consent of the concerned State. This power of the constitutional courts (under Article 226 for High Courts and Article 32/136 for Supreme Court) is an exception to the requirement of state consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. This ensures that justice is not hampered by inter-state jurisdictional disputes or perceptions of biased investigations by local authorities.

Implications for Federalism: While seemingly overriding state powers, such a judicial directive is generally considered a necessary safeguard for justice and the rule of law, particularly when there are allegations of inaction, bias, or inability on the part of state police. It reflects the judiciary's role as a protector of fundamental rights and the Constitution. However, it can sometimes be viewed as an encroachment on state autonomy, as 'police' is a State List subject (Entry 2, List II, Seventh Schedule). This tension highlights the delicate balance between federalism and the need for a robust, impartial investigative mechanism in sensitive cases. The Supreme Court often issues such directives only when it is convinced that the state machinery is unwilling or unable to carry out a fair investigation. The State of West Bengal v. Union of India (2024) case recently reiterated the importance of state consent while also acknowledging the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in Centre-State disputes, which can arise from such situations.

Section C: Match the Following

Match the following terms/cases with their associated concepts/impact:

Answer Key and Explanation:

1. 1 - C) Santhanam Committee - Recommended the establishment of the CBI.
2. 2 - A) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Legal framework providing powers to CBI, requiring state consent.
3. 3 - B) Vineet Narain vs. Union of India - Mandated fixed tenure for CBI Director, struck down "Single Directive."
4. 4 - D) Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - Amended DSPE Act, established committee for CBI Director appointment involving PM, LoP, CJI (or nominee), and gives Lokpal superintendence over CBI for referred cases.
5. 5 - E) "Caged Parrot" - Term used by Supreme Court to describe CBI due to political interference.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE