Several accused, who are in the crosshairs of the ruling party, languish in jail for years. Courts refuse to intervene because the prosecution pleads their release would prejudice ongoing investigations. Those incarcerated for long spells are not necessarily angels. But it is cruel to lock anyone up for long without a trial. Here, both investigators and courts are guilty of violating the principles of natural justice.

Against this backdrop, it will be interesting to compare perceptions about the FBI and CBI. The FBI was established in July 1935 as the successor to the Division of Investigation, as an anti-corruption and anti-crime agency. The CBI was established in 1963 to probe dubious wartime purchases by government officials.

In its early years, the FBI came under the spell of J Edgar Hoover, who headed it for an incredible term of 48 years. Among other things, he was accused of blackmailing leading lights in administration and public life. Since then, the FBI has become a powerful outfit that investigates both corruption in public administration and major crime that has interstate and international ramifications. Public and Opposition scrutiny of its investigations has increased.

The United States (US) media is watchful to unearth fabrication of charges or undue favour shown to a person under probe. An FBI director is chosen by the President and ratified by the Senate. He has a term of 10 years and can be removed any time during his tenure by the President, without having to go to the Senate.

In contrast, thanks to a procedure outlined by the Supreme Court of India (SC), the CBI director is now chosen by a committee of three persons that includes the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament (LoP). The CBI director’s minimum tenure is two years, which is too short for a dynamic officer to make an impact.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has become a force to reckon with. The controversies it has kicked up are a matter of extreme concern to those who hold objectivity and fairness as values. The arrival of the ED has diminished the CBI’s authority. A turf war between the two is likely to erupt at some point.

Public debate on the handling of corruption by government agencies usually revolves around two issues. First is the functional autonomy available to the heads of these outfits. Thanks to the SC, we have a reasonably credible procedure for appointing the CBI director. The inclusion of the LoP in the selection panel is unexceptionable. But the non-cooperative posture taken by the LoP on a few occasions, smacks of a pre-determined effort to derail a laudable procedure laid down by the Court, with the intent to embarrass the government. This is particularly galling because once the CJI has endorsed a government choice, the third member of the panel should normally fall in line rather than raise trivial procedural issues.

In sum, it is an erratic and unpredictable scene we see while analysing crime and the conduct of law enforcement agencies. The situation in many other democracies such as the US and the United Kingdom, is not very different. I do not see any change until politics becomes more value-based.

RK Raghavan is a former CBI director and a former high commissioner of India to Cyprus. The views expressed are personal