In taking down a discriminatory provision in a section of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act that enabled civil servants above the rank of joint secretary to escape being probed by the CBI without prior sanction of their political bosses, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has struck a signal blow for equality before law. The CBI has been accused often enough for being a loyal servant of the government, but it had a right to wonder how it could be expected to tackle corruption if the top brass were protected thus. The cosy club of politicians and bureaucrats involved at the highest levels of decision-making enjoyed and perpetuated this immunity on the grounds that motivated questioning of decisions should not be allowed to interfere with policy decisions taken for the larger good.
By the terms of Section 6A of the act, the top investigative arm of the police, the CBI, could not even run a preliminary enquiry unless sanctioned by the powers that be. While protection against needless finger-pointing spurred by vested interests may not exist anymore, it stands to reason that if one set of officers can be investigated for graft then those who take decisions at the senior level should be equally culpable and open to investigation. The fear that bureaucrats could suffer in a virtual police state of an unrestrained CBI is misplaced in a democratic and open society in which several avenues, including the judicial process, are available.
The discrimination between two sets of officers had to end and the top court’s contribution in this regard is absolute and to be welcomed by all right-thinking people since only corrupt officers would finally face the wrath of the law. The establishment has acted against proper enquiry into corruption for so long, proactively since 1997-98 when an ordinance was brought to nullify the CBI’s powers. It took massive scams in the most recent past to radically change the thinking.
The pitfalls of charges triggered by the grudge factor should not be allowed to muzzle investigators nor policy paralysis generated by fear of inquiry. A balance must be struck between genuine investigations and those based on obviously motivated charges that can disrupt decision-making. One way out would be to hasten the preliminary enquiry process to alert the government on where corruption may be seen to lie so that a time-bound investigation can then establish the truth.
Graft is an enemy of the state and must be fought. It is only right that we celebrate the latest judgment that should stop the degeneration of the process of decision-making that had been perfected with politicians protecting pliant lackeys in the bureaucracy.
