| |
STATES: KARNATAKA
The Tangled Triangle
The Government fights the CBI over a rule that requires
the agency to seek its permission before investigating any case in the state
By Stephen David
Karnataka chief
minister S.M. Krishna loves to talk about weeding out corruption. He loves
to boast about transparency being the hallmark of his government. Home
Minister Mallikarjuna Kharge loves to parrot what his chief says. "Anything
to root out evil" is the refrain. But all this is just empty rhetoric
going by the obstinacy both men have shown in refusing to grant general
consent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing cases
in the state.
Worse, in many cases Karnataka Home Department
officials themselves are suspected to have tipped off the targets of CBI's
investigation, frustrating the agency's efforts. R.K. Raghavan as CBI
director, Chief Vigilance Commissioner N. Vittal and several Central government
departments have periodically written to the Karnataka Government in the
matter, but to no avail. Most states, including Bihar, permit the CBI
to follow up cases but Karnataka remains intransigent. Krishna and Kharge,
who normally don't see eye to eye, stand together in denying the CBI an
opportunity to probe anti-corruption cases here.
Under the rules, only with the permission of
the state Government can the CBI proceed against government employees,
state or Central, suspected of committing offences "along with or
in conjunction with private persons". This means the CBI cannot even
register a case without prior permission from the state Government. The
idea is to screen every case before consent is given. This has obviously
hampered the agency's work in Karnataka. Seeking case-wise consent robs
the agency of surprise and speed, elements which are indispensable in
"trap cases", where the culprit is caught in a set up. Says
a top CBI official: "Sometimes the accused is tipped off that we
are on his trail." In one case, the state Government gave its nod
after two months for a raid notification against a Central government
employee. When CBI investigators raided the house, they were shocked to
find a copy there of the state Government notification to the CBI on the
case.
Most states withdraw general consent off and
on to suit their political interests and Karnataka has been no exception.
A few months after H.D. Deve Gowda became prime minister, serious charges
of corruption were levelled against him by noted economist and former
Lok Sabha member K. Venkatagiri Gowda. Moves to clip the CBI's wings began
at the time and eventually culminated in a notification by J.H. Patel's
Janata Dal government rescinding with immediate effect a 1992 order granting
the CBI general consent to investigate cases. Krishna and Kharge, who
were then in the Opposition, had made a big noise about withdrawal of
the order "for political reasons".
Now they have been in power for one and a half
years, and their change of heart on the matter is complete. As CBI director,
Raghavan had written that the state Government's denial of general consent
would "embolden delinquent public servants", adding that the
system of obtaining consent on a case to case basis was not practicable.
The response was negative. In a communication to the CBI in April 2000,
the Karnataka Home Department refused blanket permission and stressed
that "we are not in favour of granting general consent", without
explaining why.
So the CBI is unable to investigate cases against
people like Vincent George, private secretary of Congress President Sonia
Gandhi, although there are reports that he has assets in the state. Since
December 1998, the CBI has received consent in 23 cases but that is no
help, say investigators. "Speed and surprise are very important elements
for us. Even if we get a complaint of corruption we cannot trap any official.
We have no powers. By the time we apply to the state Government the person
concerned gets wind of it and destroys whatever evidence may have been
found had we the general consent," says a CBI official. It is difficult
to trap someone who is notorious for accepting bribes, for example. The
element of secrecy is not there because of leakage of information. "We
lay emphasis on documents but if the suspect comes to know that we are
on his or her trail then they destroy all the papers. Evidence is required,
arrests cannot be made without it. For example, if we know there is some
movement of narcotics, we cannot even intercept the vehicle because we
have no powers unless the consent is given. So no investigation is possible."
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
