Recently, a Delhi trial court ordered the discharge of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy Manish Sisodia, along with 21 others, in a CBI case linked to the Delhi excise (liquor) policy. The court strongly criticized CBI’s investigation, finding no overarching conspiracy, no criminal intent, and insufficient material evidence supporting the allegations.
Central Bureau of Investigation:
- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is India’s premier federal investigative agency. Operating under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (which falls under the Prime Minister’s Office), is the premier investigating police agency in India.
- It is the primary body tasked with probing high-profile corruption, economic fraud, and complex criminal cases.
- CBI is neither a constitutional nor a statutory body. It was set up in 1963 via a resolution by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
- Legal Power: It derives its investigative powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.
- Nodal Agency: It serves as the official point of contact for INTERPOL in India.
Composition of CBI:
- The CBI is headed by a Director and he is assisted by a Special Director or an Additional Director.
- Additionally, it has a number of Joint Directors, Deputy Inspector Generals, Superintendents of Police and all other usual ranks of police personnel.
- Appointment: Since the Lokpal Act of 2014, the Director is chosen by a high-powered committee consisting of:
- The Prime Minister (Chairperson)
- The Leader of the Opposition (or Leader of the single largest opposition party)
- The Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court judge nominated by them)
Organizational structure of CBI:
The CBI has the following Divisions:
- Anti-Corruption Division
- Economic Offences Division
- Special Crimes Division
- Directorate of Prosecution
- Administration Division
- Policy & Coordination Division
- Central Forensic Science Laboratory
Key Functions of CBI:
| Anti-Corruption | Cases involving Central Government employees, Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), and financial institutions. |
| Economic Crimes | Major financial scams, bank frauds, cybercrime, and smuggling of narcotics or antiques. |
| Special Crimes | High-profile murders, kidnappings, and crimes with national or international ramifications |
| Supervision | In corruption cases, the CBI works under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). |
Powers and Jurisdiction of CBI:
- Section 3 of the DSPE Act confers upon the CBIs concurrent and co-extensive powers to carry out the investigation of the offences mentioned under the same section.
- According to Section 6 of the DSPE Act, The Central Government has the power to extend the jurisdiction of the CBI to any area, except union territories, that falls within the geographical boundaries of India, subject to the consent of the state so concerned.
- An additional power conferred in the CBI Constitution is that CBI can correspond with and demand information from any Ministry or Department of the central or State Government.
- The officers of the CBI also have the added power of being exempt from the provisions of the Right to Information Act of 2005.
- State Consent:
- To investigate a crime within a state’s borders, the CBI typically needs “General Consent” from that state government.
- In recent years, several states (such as West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala) have withdrawn this general consent, requiring the CBI to seek case-specific permission unless ordered by a court.
- The Supreme Court and High Courts can order the CBI to investigate any case across India without the state’s consent.
What are some of the challenges or criticisms faced by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)?
- The “Caged Parrot”: Since the CBI operates under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which is under the Prime Minister’s Office, critics argue it lacks the administrative and financial autonomy necessary for complete independence.
- Selective and Politically Motivated Investigations Opposition parties frequently allege that the CBI is selectively deployed — aggressively pursuing cases against political rivals while going slow on cases involving those in power. This perception has significantly eroded public trust.
- Withdrawal of Consent: Under the DSPE Act of 1946, the CBI must obtain consent from a state government to investigate within its territory. As of early 2026, about 10 states (including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab) have withdrawn their “General Consent.” This forces the CBI to seek case-specific permission for every new investigation in those states, which often leads to delays, legal battles, and the destruction of evidence before a probe can even begin.
- Non-Statutory Status: Unlike the Election Commission or the CAG, the CBI is not a constitutional body. It isn’t even a “statutory” body in the traditional sense, as it was created by an executive resolution rather than a dedicated Act of Parliament. This makes its very existence legally “fragile.”
- Dependence on Deputation: The CBI does not have its own dedicated cadre for high-level officers; it relies on IPS officers coming in on deputation. This can lead to a lack of continuity and potential pressure on officers who must eventually return to their home states or the central pool.
- RTI Exemption: The CBI is largely exempt from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing national security and the sensitive nature of its investigations. Critics argue this shields the agency from public accountability regarding its administrative and financial conduct.
- Conviction Rates vs. Trial Delays: While the CBI boasts a high conviction rate (over 65%), many of its high-profile cases take decades to reach a verdict, often leading to “trial by media” followed by an eventual acquittal due to faded evidence.
- Overlapping Roles (CBI vs. ED): Often, both agencies investigate the same scandal (the CBI for the “predicate offense” like corruption, and the ED for “money laundering”). This can lead to bureaucratic friction and multiple arrests for the same crime, which the courts have recently begun to scrutinize under the “Right to Silence” and “Protection against Self-Incrimination.”
What should be the way forward?
- Statutory Independence: Legal experts and parliamentary panels suggest enacting a dedicated “CBI Act” that clearly defines its powers, jurisdiction, and relationship with the Centre. Granting it status similar to the Election Commission or CAG would protect it from executive whims and provide a solid legal foundation for its operations nationwide.
- Solving the “Federal Friction”: A new law could empower the CBI to investigate cases affecting national security, integrity, and inter-state organized crime without needing state consent, while leaving local corruption to state agencies. To prevent misuse, the law should include checks where states can challenge a probe if they feel it is politically motivated, perhaps through a fast-tracked judicial review.
- Creating a Permanent Cadre:
- Independent Recruitment: Establishing a permanent investigative cadre through a dedicated “CBI Examination” (similar to the UPSC) for ranks like Sub-Inspector and DySP.
- Lateral Entry for Specialists: Infiltrating the agency with experts in forensic accounting, cyber security, and data analytics from the private sector to handle 21st-century white-collar crimes.
- Enhancing Accountability and Transparency:
- Regular reporting to a specialized Parliamentary Committee (without compromising ongoing probe secrets) to ensure financial and administrative accountability.
- Limiting the broad exemptions the CBI currently enjoys under the RTI Act, specifically for administrative and corruption-related matters within the agency itself.
- Administrative and Financial Independence:
- The CBI’s budget should be placed under a separate constitutional or statutory head rather than being dependent on the Ministry of Personnel.
- Providing the CBI with a dedicated budget sanctioned directly by Parliament, similar to the Judiciary, rather than making it dependent on the DoPT (Ministry of Personnel) for every expense.
- Modernization and Capacity Building: The CBI needs significant investment in forensic infrastructure, cybercrime capabilities, financial investigation tools, and human resources. Many of its investigative delays stem from genuine capacity constraints. Dedicated training programs, competitive salaries, and lateral induction of specialists in areas like digital forensics and financial crimes would improve output quality.
- Learning from Global Best Practices: India could draw lessons from agencies like the FBI (statutory independence), Hong Kong’s ICAC (singular anti-corruption focus with high public trust), or Singapore’s CPIB (lean, well-resourced, and politically insulated) to design a more effective institutional model.
| Read More: Indian Express UPSC GS-2: Polity |
