The CBI chief selection

THE MESS OVER the appointment of a full-time CBI Director, to succeed Mr. R. K. Raghavan who retired on April 30, was wholly unnecessary and needs to be sorted out as expeditiously as possible. The muddle is a direct consequence of the decision of the three-member selection panel, headed by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner Mr. N. Vittal, to shortlist three IPS officers for the post - all of whom had two years or more before superannuation. Inexplicably, the shortlist was drawn up a few days before the Supreme Court was to deliver its ruling on a petition filed by the Central Government which sought clarifications on the selection procedure to be adopted in appointing a new CBI Director. The petition requested the Supreme Court to clarify whether officers with less than two years service tenure could be considered for the job - a rather odd plea since the apex body had made it crystal clear in its 1997 order that those with less than two years to superannuate could be considered for the job. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court held that there was no need for it to clarify.

It is a matter of regret that the entire process of selection of a full-time replacement for Mr. Raghavan has been vitiated because of Mr. Vittal's baffling insistence that only candidates with a clear two-year service tenure would be considered for the job - a position that was totally at odds with the Supreme Court's 1997 order. Mr. Vittal now claims that it is wholly accidental that the three shortlisted IPS officers had two years or more to superannuate - thereby implying that these three men were the best candidates for the job anyway. While this may (or may not) be true, his claim appears very much like a weak and unconvincing post-hoc rationalisation of a questionable selection procedure. What will be done now? It is not clear at this moment what the selection panel proposes to do but the honest answer is that the mess is not going to be easy to clean up. In these litigious times, pressing ahead with the three shortlisted names is very likely to be legally challenged. Drawing up a fresh shortlist, after considering all those with service tenures of less than two years (including Mr. P. C. Sharma who now officiates as Director until a full-time appointment is made), is unlikely to be free of controversy either.

Things have been made even more complex by a interim ruling of the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Bench, which is hearing a petition filed by a senior IPS officer stating he was unjustly overlooked in the selection process, held that any appointment of a full-time CBI Director is subject to the final outcome of the petition. While the Bench has not specifically prohibited the appointment of a new Director, the interim ruling could well persuade those involved in the selection procedure that it is more prudent to await the final orders on the petition. Another controversy relating to the appointment procedure is whether the CBI chief should be selected from only among those IPS officers empanelled at the Centre or whether the ``zone of consideration'' should be expanded to include all eligible police officials. The Bangalore Bench of the CAT has already ruled on this question but the matter is now pending before the Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court's 1997 order is silent on how wide the selection net should be. Since this issue has become a subject of heated controversy, it is extremely important that the question whether every eligible IPS officer or only those empanelled are in the reckoning for the CBI chief's job is judicially determined once and for all.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Violence in Assam