CBI: Cagged parrot to Unconstitutional
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
  • Circulation
  • Advertise
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
Organiser
  • ‌
  • Bharat
  • World
  • Editorial
  • Analysis
  • Opinion
  • Defence
  • Sports
  • Business
  • More
    • RSS in News
    • Special Report
    • Culture
    • Sci & Tech
    • Entertainment
    • Education
    • Books
    • Interviews
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Obituary
SUBSCRIBE
No Result
View All Result
Organiser
  • ‌
  • Bharat
  • World
  • Editorial
  • Analysis
  • Opinion
  • Defence
  • Sports
  • Business
  • More
    • RSS in News
    • Special Report
    • Culture
    • Sci & Tech
    • Entertainment
    • Education
    • Books
    • Interviews
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Obituary
No Result
View All Result
Organiser
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Bharat
  • World
  • Editorial
  • Opinion
  • Analysis
  • Culture
  • Defence
  • RSS in News
  • Subscribe
Home General

CBI: Cagged parrot to Unconstitutional

Archive Manager by Archive Manager
Nov 26, 2013, 12:00 am IST
in General
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterTelegramEmail

THE Guwahati High Court in a  ruling  on  November  6,  2013, questioned the legal validity of the CBI. It said, “A careful reading of the preamble to the DSPE Act, 1946, would make it evident that the DSPE Act, 1946, has been made for the Union Territories. This legislative power cannot be exercised by  the Parliament except under Article 246(4) of the Constitution, which enables the Parliament to enact laws on subjects covered by List-II (State List), in respect of Union Territories.” The court ruled, “We do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) and the CBI can't be treated as a 'police force' constituted under the DSPE Act of 1946. We hereby set aside and quash the impugned resolution dated 01.04.1963 whereby CBI has been constituted.”
Allowing a writ petition filed by one Navendra Kumar, the bench quashed the chargesheet filed against him by the CBI but said the alleged offence could be investigated afresh by the regular state police. As a triggering effect, this judgment would render all chargesheets filed by the CBI till date invalid.”
The Central Government had set up altogether a new body known as CBI, by the impugned Resolution. Admittedly, at that time, no legislation was made, to set-up the CBI and the source of power being traced to Entry 8 of Part-I (Union List), which reads 'Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation'.
The HC said: “The word 'investigation'; was, therefore, according to the Constituent Assembly debates, intended to cover general 'enquiry' for the purpose of finding out, what was going on and this 'investigation', which amounts to a mere 'enquiry', is not an 'investigation' preparatory to the filing of charge-sheet against an offender, for, such an 'investigation' can be carried on only by a police officer, under the Criminal Procedure Code, and none else.”
This apart, it is the State Legislature, which is entitled to constitute a ‘Police force’ for the purpose of conducting 'investigation' into crime. From the above discussion, which took place in the Constituent Assembly, it becomes crystal clear that Parliament cannot, by taking resort to Entry 8 of List-I (Union List), make any law empowering a Police officer to make 'investigation' in the same manner as is done, under the Criminal Procedure Code, by a Police officer while conducting an ‘investigation’ into an offence for the purpose of bringing to book an offender.
If the CBI is an integral part of DSPE, then such a resolution ought to have been issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government by the DSPE Act, 1946. In other words, had the CBI been constituted under the DSPE Act by the Central Government, the CBI could have been treated as having been created by way of delegated legislation. There is, however, nothing either in the DSPE Act or in the impugned resolution to show that the CBI is a creation of a delegated piece of legislation.
The Centre challenged  on   November 9, 2013, before the Supreme Court the Guwahati High Court order and sought a stay on it contending that the verdict will adversely impact thousands of criminal cases pending across the country. In its appeal, the Government sought an urgent hearing against the high court order saying it directly impacts about nine thousand trials currently underway and about one thousand investigations which are being undertaken by the CBI “if the impugned order is not stayed, it will frustrate the law machinery and may result in multiplicity of proceedings”.
“The order is already being seized upon by various accused persons in various proceedings in the country to seek a stay of further proceedings against them.” The Supreme Court has granted the prayer of the Government and stayed the order of the Guwahati High Court, and fixed the next date on December 6, 2013.  Incidentally,                        the effect of High Court                                   indirectly  or directly means that cases like 2 G and Coal Scams and other cases investigated on the orders of the High Courts can not be initiated, unless those High Courts individually, Or Supreme Court stays the orders of the High Court,  which it has done. A few lessons   emerge from this entire episode. First of all, the Government should examine, closely, what Guwahati High Court has said, and if there are any deficiencies, the same should be rectified.
Secondly, the CBI should be given a ‘Constitutional Status’, like the Election or CAG, so that this problem is ended once for all. At the same the time the outmoded laws, where even if a person is caught red handed           in bribery cases, there should be a  provision of a summary trial, as well as confiscation of his property. Thirdly, the onus of proving that whatever assets a public servant has in possession should lie on the accused that all this is result of honest earning.
There are 32 million court cases pending in India, and the strength of the judiciary which even as per the recommendation of the Law Commission in 1988 should be  50 judges per million. By that calculation, we need over 70,000 judges, where as the actual number in position is less than 1,400 all over the country. Even in Supreme Court and High Courts, where the sanctioned strength is 895, there are 282 vacancies. The Government has taken no action on the orders of the Supreme Court to given functional autonomy to CBI, nor almost all State Governments have acted for reforms in the Police, all over the country, on September 22. The Central Government should give a lead at least in implementing the same in the Union Territories.  It should set an example to the states, as setting an example is not the means of influencing others. Infact it is the only means.

 

ShareTweetSendShareSend
Previous News

The damage imposed by Muslims on themselves

Next News

Maintain restraint and decency in speeches

Related News

Biden blames Texas school shooting on gun lobby, Vice President Harris calls the attack, ‘heartbreaking tragedy’

Biden blames Texas school shooting on gun lobby, Vice President Harris calls the attack, ‘heartbreaking tragedy’

US: Fourteen children, one teacher killed in Texas school shooting

US: Fourteen children, one teacher killed in Texas school shooting

Rajasthan: IPS officer insults Hindu deities, hurts religious sentiments after Shivling was found inside Gyanvapi

Rajasthan: IPS officer insults Hindu deities, hurts religious sentiments after Shivling was found inside Gyanvapi

BJP minority wing leader hacked to death in Chennai; Opposition said Chennai had become the “murder city”

BJP minority wing leader hacked to death in Chennai; Opposition said Chennai had become the “murder city”

DMK’s anti-Hindu measures face strong opposition in Tamil Nadu

DMK’s anti-Hindu measures face strong opposition in Tamil Nadu

Tedros Adhanom re-elected as WHO chief for second term

Tedros Adhanom re-elected as WHO chief for second term

Comments

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Organiser. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.

Latest News

Biden blames Texas school shooting on gun lobby, Vice President Harris calls the attack, ‘heartbreaking tragedy’

Biden blames Texas school shooting on gun lobby, Vice President Harris calls the attack, ‘heartbreaking tragedy’

US: Fourteen children, one teacher killed in Texas school shooting

US: Fourteen children, one teacher killed in Texas school shooting

Rajasthan: IPS officer insults Hindu deities, hurts religious sentiments after Shivling was found inside Gyanvapi

Rajasthan: IPS officer insults Hindu deities, hurts religious sentiments after Shivling was found inside Gyanvapi

BJP minority wing leader hacked to death in Chennai; Opposition said Chennai had become the “murder city”

BJP minority wing leader hacked to death in Chennai; Opposition said Chennai had become the “murder city”

DMK’s anti-Hindu measures face strong opposition in Tamil Nadu

DMK’s anti-Hindu measures face strong opposition in Tamil Nadu

Tedros Adhanom re-elected as WHO chief for second term

Tedros Adhanom re-elected as WHO chief for second term

Jammu Kashmir Police busts JeM terror module in Awantipora, 8 arrested

Jammu Kashmir Police busts JeM terror module in Awantipora, 8 arrested

PM Modi departs for home after productive Quad summit in Japan

PM Modi departs for home after productive Quad summit in Japan

Prime Minister Narendra Modi to lead Mass Yoga Demonstration at Mysore on 8th International Day of Yoga

Prime Minister Narendra Modi to lead Mass Yoga Demonstration at Mysore on 8th International Day of Yoga

Assam: CM Himanta Biswa Sarma visits Dima Hasao; reviews situation and assured aid

Assam: CM Himanta Biswa Sarma visits Dima Hasao; reviews situation and assured aid

  • Circulation
  • Advertise
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy

© Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Limited.
Tech-enabled by Ananthapuri Technologies

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Bharat
  • World
  • Editorial
  • Analysis
  • Opinion
  • Defence
  • Culture
  • Sports
  • Business
  • RSS in News
  • Special Report
  • Sci & Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Education
  • Books
  • Interviews
  • Travel
  • Health
  • Obituary
  • Subscribe
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Circulation
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy

© Bharat Prakashan (Delhi) Limited.
Tech-enabled by Ananthapuri Technologies