<p>Karnataka has joined a number of other states in withdrawing general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through a notification issued last week. </p><p>The state government’s decision came in the wake of the High Court’s adverse ruling against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the MUDA land allotment case. </p><p>The government has denied any link between the two but even if a such a link exists that would only prompt us to think of the concerns and compulsions that push states to shut their doors to the central agency.</p><p>These concerns are valid and have to be seen beyond the facts and the circumstances of the case under scrutiny. There is a corruption case and the needle of suspicion has pointed to the chief executive of the state. There is the need for a comprehensive investigation in the matter.</p><p>Siddaramaiah, as anyone under a shadow of suspicion, deserves it and the state wants it. But there are serious apprehensions whether the CBI would be able to conduct a fair investigation. </p>.<p>Justice demands that the accused and the society have faith in the law enforcement machinery and the agency which conducts an investigation. The CBI has lost that trust. </p><p>Eight states ruled by non-BJP parties — Punjab, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Meghalaya and Mizoram — have in recent years withdrawn their general consent for the CBI. </p><p>That means the CBI would have to seek permission on a case-by-case before any probe. The CBI is a federal agency under the central government’s control. </p><p>The provision on general consent ensures that the agency is not used by the Centre for its own ends. The state is within its rights and powers to press the provision in a federal set-up. </p>.<p>The CBI has proved again and again that it does not play fair and square and is guided by the interests of its political masters. The Supreme Court called it a “caged parrot” in 2013 and last month reiterated that dishonourable description in the Arvind Kejriwal case. </p><p>Chief Ministers and Opposition politicians have been selectively hounded and harassed by the central agencies in the past few years as never before. But politicians belonging to the ruling party at the Centre or those who join it seem to enjoy impunity. </p>.<p>The system should have its defences to protect itself. The provision on general consent is one of the last defences in this area. State governments cannot be blamed if they use that power when they think that they and their leaders may be unfairly targeted. </p><p>But the Siddaramaiah government should realise that the timing of its move will hurt its credibility in the public eye. </p>
<p>Karnataka has joined a number of other states in withdrawing general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through a notification issued last week. </p><p>The state government’s decision came in the wake of the High Court’s adverse ruling against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the MUDA land allotment case. </p><p>The government has denied any link between the two but even if a such a link exists that would only prompt us to think of the concerns and compulsions that push states to shut their doors to the central agency.</p><p>These concerns are valid and have to be seen beyond the facts and the circumstances of the case under scrutiny. There is a corruption case and the needle of suspicion has pointed to the chief executive of the state. There is the need for a comprehensive investigation in the matter.</p><p>Siddaramaiah, as anyone under a shadow of suspicion, deserves it and the state wants it. But there are serious apprehensions whether the CBI would be able to conduct a fair investigation. </p>.<p>Justice demands that the accused and the society have faith in the law enforcement machinery and the agency which conducts an investigation. The CBI has lost that trust. </p><p>Eight states ruled by non-BJP parties — Punjab, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Meghalaya and Mizoram — have in recent years withdrawn their general consent for the CBI. </p><p>That means the CBI would have to seek permission on a case-by-case before any probe. The CBI is a federal agency under the central government’s control. </p><p>The provision on general consent ensures that the agency is not used by the Centre for its own ends. The state is within its rights and powers to press the provision in a federal set-up. </p>.<p>The CBI has proved again and again that it does not play fair and square and is guided by the interests of its political masters. The Supreme Court called it a “caged parrot” in 2013 and last month reiterated that dishonourable description in the Arvind Kejriwal case. </p><p>Chief Ministers and Opposition politicians have been selectively hounded and harassed by the central agencies in the past few years as never before. But politicians belonging to the ruling party at the Centre or those who join it seem to enjoy impunity. </p>.<p>The system should have its defences to protect itself. The provision on general consent is one of the last defences in this area. State governments cannot be blamed if they use that power when they think that they and their leaders may be unfairly targeted. </p><p>But the Siddaramaiah government should realise that the timing of its move will hurt its credibility in the public eye. </p>
