One news that has occupied news space for the last one week is the controversial CBI Vs. Kolkata Police Case. With central and state governments explicitly picking sides, this notorious case has raised instrumental questions about the acceptability of institutions like Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) in the eyes of opposition. Although, never been pious with neutrality, now is the time when CBI, ED, RBI etc. are being scrutinized with serious allegations.
Even when the case has been subdued to a huge extend, the ripple effect of the abrupt raid on Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar’s house, the 3-day long dhrana at Kolkata’s Metro Channel, and what followed it would persist for a while.
Mamata Banejree very frivolously dissented against the attempted arrest of her police commissioner Rajeev Kumar by staging a 3-day-long protest near the Kolkata’s Metro Channel, in a very similar manner to the hunger strike she staged back in 2006 against the Buddhadeb Bhattacharya’s government.
Back then, when she was not in power; it was a fight against the left government who had allotted fertile agricultural lands in Singur to multinational corporations TATA motors for setting up the TATA Nano factory. But the catch here is that this time it’s Mamata’s incumbency and this isn’t mere activism but an open and shut case of political power tussle.
Although the Supreme Court judgement regarding this case has finally come with both parties (central government and West Bengal government) contented, in this political battle it’s the central government who had an upper hand. This is primarily because of a landmark Supreme Court case from the past.
It’s the Judgment in Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (1994) case that makes Mamata’s stance dubious.
So, to understand the functioning of CBI it’s necessary to note that CBI’s power to investigate is derived out of Delhi Special Establishment Act of 1946, which constituted a Special Police Force to investigate certain offenses in Delhi and the Union Territories of India. It was renamed as Central Bureau Of Investigation in 1963. Section 5 of the DSPE Act bestows power to CBI to investigate in areas other than Delhi and UTs.
On the other hand, Section 6 of the same Act clarifies that the special force (or CBI) cannot exercise this power and jurisdiction in a state without that state government’s consent. On May 16, 1975, Sikkim became a part of India and Kazi Lhendup Dorji became the 1st Chief Minister of the state. A year later, on October 20, 1976, Sikkim gave its accent to the aforementioned General Consent of CBI. This made the least populated state of India come within the ambit of CBI’s jurisdiction.
In 1979 , Nar Bahadur Rai became the 2nd Chief Minister of Sikkim. Although considered as the architect of Modern Sikkim, he was surrounded with controversies once he stepped down from the Chief Minister’s post for the 1st time on May 11, 1984. Less than 20 days after he was dethroned, CBI registered cases against him on charges of corruptions.
Consecutively, more charges were levied on him and the then Rural Development Secretary of State on August 7 that year. But, as the case moved forward, Rai again became the Chief Minister in March 1985. By January 7, 1987, he withdrew all consent given to CBI to investigate in the state expecting that the cases filed on him earlier would be squashed.
In the further course of event, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court and the Judgement came out against Mr. Nar Bahadur Rai and others involved. The apex court clarified that the withdrawal dated January 7, 1987 will operate only “prospectively” and not “retrospectively”. It meant that cases registered prior the date of withdrawal will be allowed to follow the path of investigation to reach a logical conclusion.
Coming to the Saradha Chit Fund Case, the Supreme Court, in May 2014, had transferred all the investigation related to this particular case to CBI. As the case was allotted to CBI before West Bengal withdrew its general consent to the organisation (in November 2018 along with Andhra Pradesh), the hindrance caused by State Government’s apex leader is quite unsolicited.
To be honest, looking at the affinity to 2019 General Elections and Mamata’s uncompromising bid to establish a “Third Front” government at the centre, this political move is even questionable to some extent.