With fear and favour

The year breezing out will perhaps inevitably be remembered for the great political transformation. The Lok Sabha elections attested once again India’s abiding allegiance to democracy, in the freeness and fairness of the polls and the smooth — though full of spectacle — transition of power from one coalition to another. For a deeper realisation of the democratic ideal, however, much needs to be done. Democracy is so much more than the mere conduct of elections. To be meaningful it requires much else. It implies, for instance, the rule of law and the belief that those who derive their power from the state will be able to discharge their duties without bias and that if they break the law, they will be held to account. India’s uneven success in realising liberal democracy can be told through the constrasting stories of the Election Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Just this week, both organisations have been in the news. The EC took Laloo Prasad Yadav to task for flouting the model code of conduct. For the railway minister, it was a sobering moment, the perceived impartiality of the commission rendering his witticisms flat and unconvincing. The CBI, on the other hand, is at the centre of yet another controversy, this time for a reported letter received on the Ayodhya case. The NDA opposition claims it exposes the Central government’s attempts to pressure the agency; the government denies this. The truth of the matter is not clearly known, but it once again must alert us to the danger of the CBI being subordinated to the dictates of the government of the day. The manner in which cases ranging from the Babri Masjid demolition to the fodder scam, from Bofors to the Judeo and Jogi tapes, have been pursued cannot but confirm the partisan nature of the country’s highest investigating agency.

It need not have been so. Of course, the CBI does not enjoy the constitutional safeguards the EC has. It is after all a remnant of the colonial era — it has its origins as a tool to check embezzlement in World War II supplies. Over time it became an instrument of state attached to the ministry of personnel. But in a judgement in the hawala case in the mid-’90s, the Supreme Court made two interventions to foster professionalism and impartiality in the CBI. One, it entrusted the appointment of the CBI chief to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, removing political interference. Two, it ordered security of tenure for the CBI chief. Why then does the bureau continue to have a Stalinist reputation? Because, unlike T.N. Seshan and J.M. Lyngdoh, no CBI chief has shown the self confidence and belief to assert independence. Because the legislative class has failed in acting to empower the agency. Either way, the continued disrepute of the CBI poses great dangers for our republic.