Remove CBI chief

The disclosure that several persons involved in some of the biggest scams in the country’s history like the 2G spectrum allotment and coalfield allocation which were being investigated by the CBI, were frequent visitors at the residence of the agency’s director Ranjit Sinha has dealt a serious blow to the credibility of the post he holds. It not only raises questions of propriety but also casts doubts about the fairness of the agency’s investigations.  Some of the persons who met Sinha are themselves being probed for corruption and fraud, others are agents of companies which are under scrutiny for financial malfeasance. The CBI was investigating them on the Supreme Court’s orders and under its supervision, but its director was holding meetings with the suspects at home over many months, thus seriously compromising his position.

A diary containing the names of the visitors was submitted to the Supreme Court by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan. Sinha’s responses have been unconvincing and unsatisfactory. First he said there was no such diary, then he said some entries may be correct, and later alleged that there was a conspiracy against him. He has filed a case of perjury against the CPIL and its secretary general Kamini Jaiswal, and has defiantly asked what was wrong about meeting these people. It is scandalous that the director met those involved in the scam, investigated by the country’s premier investigation agency he heads, that too at his residence and several times over. If at all he meets them, it should be in the CBI’s official premises, in the presence of the investigating officer. Sinha’s claim that the revelations are an intrusion into his privacy is also completely unacceptable. He is a public servant and is accountable for those whom he meets, especially when the people he chose to meet are suspected to have worked against public interest.

The disclosures may also be read with Sinha’s record in the CBI, which has been controversial.  But even without the lapses and infractions of the past, there is enough in the disclosures to indict him of gross impropriety, and even misconduct. He has been seen as interfering in and sabotaging the agency’s work. There is a demand for a special investigation into his conduct and for his removal from office. There are enough disclosures to indict him of gross impropriety. He should step down, else the government should remove him from the post forthwith.