Central Bureau of

Investigation

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Learn more

The Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) is the premier investigating agency
of India.[3] Operating under the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions, the CBI
is headed by the Director. Originally set
up to investigate bribery and
governmental corruption, in 1965 it
received expanded jurisdiction.[4] The
agency has been known to investigate
several economic crimes, special crimes,
cases of corruption and other high-profile
cases.[3]
 Central Bureau of Investigation

Crime branch overview

Formed 1941 as the Special

Police Establishment

Jurisdiction Government of India

Headquarters New Delhi, India

Motto Industry, Impartiality,

Integrity

Employees Sanctioned: 7274

Actual: 5685
Vacant: 1589 (21.84%)
as on 1 Mar 2017[1]

Annual budget ₹698.38 crore

 (US$101.0 million)
(FY2018-19)[2]
Crime branch Rishi Kumar Shukla,
executive IPS, Director General

Parent crime branch Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievances and
Pensions

Website www.cbi.gov.in

The CBI headquarters are located in CGO

Complex, near Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium
in New Delhi.

Rishi Kumar Shukla is the current director

of the CBI. Latest arrest made by CBI
was on 21st August 2019 to the Former
Finance and Home Minister P.
Chidambaram who is been accused by
CBI & ED in INX Media Case. [5]

History
Special Police Establishment
(SPE)

The Bureau of Investigation traces its

origins to the Special Police
Establishment, a Central Government
Police force, which was set up in 1941 by
the Government of India to investigate
bribery and corruption in transactions
with the War and Supply Department of
India.[4] It had its headquarters in Lahore.
The Superintendent of the SPE was
Qurban Ali Khan, who later opted for
Pakistan during the Partition of India.[6]
The first legal adviser of the War
Department was Rai Sahib Karam Chand
Jain. After the end of the war, there was a
continued need for a central
governmental agency to investigate
bribery and corruption by central-
government employees.Sahib Karam
Chand Jain remained its legal advisor
when the department was transferred to
the Home Department by the 1946 Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act.[4]

This is DSPE's scope was enlarged to

cover all departments of the Government
of India. Its jurisdiction extended to the
Union Territories, and could be further
extended to the states with the consent
of the state governments involved.
Sardar Patel, first Deputy Prime Minister
of free India and head of the Home
Department, desired to weed out
corruption in erstwhile princely states
such as Jodhpur, Rewa and Tonk. Patel
directed Legal Advisor Karam Chand Jain
to monitor criminal proceedings against
the dewans and chief ministers of those
states.

Th DSPE acquired its popular current

name, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), through a Home Ministry resolution
dated 1.4.1963.
CBI takes shape

The CBI established a reputation as

India's foremost investigative agency
with the resources for complicated
cases, and it was requested to assist the
investigation of crimes such as murder,
kidnapping and terrorism. The Supreme
Court and a number of High Courts in the
country also begin assigning such
investigations to the CBI on the basis of
petitions filed by aggrieved parties. In
1987, the CBI was divided into the
following divisions: the Anti-Corruption
Division, the Special Crimes Division, the
Economic Offences Division, the Policy
and International Police Cooperation
Division, the Administration Division, the
Directorate of Prosecution Division and
the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
Division.

D. P. Kohli

The founding director of the CBI was D. P.

Kohli, who held the office from 1 April
1963 to 31 May 1968. Before this, Kohli
was Inspector-general of police for the
Special Police Establishment from 1955
to 1963 and held law-enforcement
positions in Madhya Bharat (as chief of
police), Uttar Pradesh and local central-
government offices. For distinguished
service, Kohli was awarded the Padma
Bhushan in 1967.

Kohli saw in the Special Police

Establishment the potential to growing
into a National Investigative Agency. He
nurtured the organisation during his long
career as inspector general and director
and laid the foundation on which the
agency grew.

Organisational structure
The CBI is headed by a Director, an IPS
officer with a rank of Director General of
Police. The director is selected by a high-
profile committee constituted under The
Delhi Special Police Establishment
(DSPE) Act, 1946 [1] as amended
through The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,
2013, and has a two-year term. Other
ranks in the CBI which may be staffed by
the IRS(Indian Revenue Service) officer
and the IPS are Special Director,
Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Superintendent
of Police, Additional Superintendent of
Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-
Inspector, Head constable, Constable
which are recruited through SSC or
through deputation from Police, Income
Tax Department and Customs
Department.
Appointment Committee
and Selection committee
The amended Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act 1946 (as amended
through The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,
2013) empowers an Appointment
Committee to appoint the director of CBI.
The committee consists the following
people:

Prime Minister – chairperson

Leader of Opposition of Loksabha –
member
Chief Justice of India or a Supreme
Court Judge recommended by the
Chief Justice – member
When making recommendations, the
committee considers the views of the
outgoing director.

The Selection Committee constituted

under Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act 1946 nominates a certain number of
names to the Appointment Committee,
one among whom the Appointment
Committee appoints as the CBI director.

NDA government, on 25 November 2014,

moved an amendment bill to do away
with the requirement of quorum in high-
profile committee while recommending
the names, for the post of director CBI, to
the central government by introducing
the clause "no appointment of a (CBI)
director shall be invalid merely by reason
of any vacancy or absence of members
in the panel". and to replace the LOP with
Leader of single largest opposition party
or pre-election coalition as at present
there is no Leader of opposition in the
Loksabha.[7]

Infrastructure

CBI Headquarters in New Delhi

CBI headquarters is a ₹186 crore
(US$27 million), 11-storey building in
New Delhi, housing all branches of the
agency.[8] The 7,000-square-metre
(75,000 sq ft) building is equipped with a
modern communications system, an
advanced record-maintenance system,
storage space, computerised access
control and an additional facility for new
technology. Interrogation rooms, cells,
dormitories and conference halls are
provided. The building has a staff
cafeteria with a capacity of 500, men's
and women's gyms, a terrace garden, and
bi-level basement parking for 470
vehicles. Advanced fire-control and
power-backup systems are provided, in
addition to a press briefing room and
media lounge.[8]

The CBI Academy in Ghaziabad, Uttar

Pradesh (east of Delhi) began in 1996.[9]
It is about 40 kilometres (25 mi) from the
New Delhi railway station and about
65 km (40 mi) from Indira Gandhi
International Airport. The 26.5-acre
(10.7 ha) campus, with fields and
plantations, houses the administrative,
academic, hostel and residential
buildings. Before the academy was built
a small training centre at Lok Nayak
Bhawan, New Delhi, conducted short-
term in-service courses. The CBI then
relied on state police-training institutions
and the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
National Police Academy in Hyderabad
for basic training courses for deputy
superintendents of police, sub-inspectors
and constables.

The Academy accommodates the

training needs of all CBI ranks. Facilities
for specialised courses are also made
available to the officials of the state
police, central police organisations
(CPOs), public-sector vigilance
organisations, bank and government
departments and the Indian Armed
Forces.

Jurisdiction, powers and

restrictions
The legal powers of investigation of the
CBI are derived from the DSPE Act 1946,
which confers powers, duties, privileges
and liabilities on the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (CBI) and officers of the
Union Territories. The central government
may extend to any area (except Union
Territories) the powers and jurisdiction of
the CBI for investigation, subject to the
consent of the government of the
concerned state. Members of the CBI at
or above the rank of sub-inspector may
be considered officers in charge of police
stations. Under the act, the CBI can
investigate only with notification by the
central government.

Relationship with state police

Maintaining law and order is a state

responsibility as "police" is a State
subject, and the jurisdiction to
investigate crime lies with the state
police exclusively . The CBI being a Union
subject may investigate:

Offences against central-government

employees, or concerning affairs of the
central government and employees of
central public-sector undertakings and
public-sector banks
 Cases involving the financial interests
of the central government
Breaches of central laws enforceable
by the Government of India
Major fraud or embezzlement; multi-
state organised crime
Multi-agency or international cases

High Courts and the Supreme

Court

The High Courts and the Supreme Court

have the jurisdiction to order a CBI
investigation into an offence alleged to
have been committed in a state without
the state's consent, according to a five-
judge constitutional bench of the
Supreme Court (in Civil Appeals 6249
and 6250 of 2001) on 17 Feb 2010. The
bench ruled:

Being the protectors of civil

liberties of the citizens, this
Court and the High Courts
have not only the power and
jurisdiction but also an
obligation to protect the
fundamental rights,
guaranteed by Part III in
general and under Article 21 of
the Constitution in particular,
zealously and vigilantly.
 — Five-judge constitutional
bench of the Supreme Court
of India, [10]

The court clarified this is an extraordinary

power which must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and only in exceptional
situations.[10][11]

the SC in CBI VS CBI case held that the

power to remove/send on leave the
director of CBI, vested in the selection
committee, not with the central govt.SC
says this verdict when CBI Director
challenge the decision of central govt to
send him on leave without his will.
 Name[12] From To

D. P. Kohli 1 April 1963 31 May 1968

F. V. Arul 31 May 1968 6 May 1971

D. Sen 6 May 1971 29 March 1977

S. N. Mathur 29 March 1977 2 May 1977

C. V. Narsimhan 2 May 1977 25 November 1977

John Lobo 25 November 1977 30 June 1979

R. D. Singh 30 June 1979 24 January 1980

J. S. Bajwa 24 January 1980 28 February 1985

M. G. Katre 28 February 1985 31 October 1989

A. P. Mukherjee 31 October 1989 11 January 1990

R. Sekhar 11 January 1990 14 February 1990

Vijay Karan 14 February 1990 14 February 1990

S. K. Datta 14 February 1990 31 July 1993

K. V. R. Rao 31 July 1993 31 July 1996

Joginder Singh 31 July 1996 30 June 1997

R. C. Sharma 30 June 1997 31 January 1998

D. R. Karthikeyan (acting) 31 January 1998 31 March 1998

T. N. Mishra (acting) 31 March 1998 4 January 1999

R. K. Raghavan 4 January 1999 1 April 2001

P. C. Sharma 1 April 2001 6 December 2003

U. S. Misra 6 December 2003 6 December 2005

Vijay Shanker Tiwari 12 December 2005 31 July 2008

Ashwani Kumar 2 August 2008 30 November 2010

A. P. Singh 30 November 2010 30 November 2012

Ranjit Sinha 3 December 2012 2 December 2014

Anil Sinha 3 December 2014 2 December 2016

Rakesh Asthana (Special Director) 3 December 2016 Present (on leave)

Alok Verma 1 February 2017 10 January 2019

M. Nageshwar Rao (interim) 24 October 2018 1 February 2019

Rishi Kumar Shukla 2 February 2019 Present (in-charge)

Right to Information (RTI)
CBI is exempted from the provisions of
the Right to Information Act. This
exemption was granted by the
government on 9 June 2011 (with similar
exemptions to the National Investigating
Agency (NIA), the Directorate General of
Income Tax Investigation and the
National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid)) on
the basis of national security. It was
criticized by the Central Information
Commission and RTI activists, who said
the blanket exemption violated the letter
and intent of the RTI Act.[13] The
exemption was upheld in Madras High
Court.
Controversy and criticism
Corruption

According to Supreme Court of India, the

CBI has been criticized for being a "caged
parrot speaking in its master's voice", due
to its excessive political interference
irrespective of which party happened to
be in power at the time.[14][15][16]

Because of the CBI's political

overtones,[17] it has been exposed by
former officials such as Joginder Singh
and B. R. Lall (director and joint director,
respectively) as engaging in nepotism,
wrongful prosecution and corruption. In
Lall's book, Who Owns CBI, he details
how investigations are manipulated and
derailed.[18] Corruption within the
organisation[19][20] has been revealed in
information obtained under the RTI
Act,[21] and RTI activist Krishnanand
Tripathi has alleged harassment from the
CBI to save itself from exposure via
RTI.[22]

Political interference

Normally, cases assigned to the CBI are

sensitive and of national importance. It is
standard practice for state police
departments to register cases under its
jurisdiction; if necessary, the central
government may transfer a case to the
CBI. The agency has been criticised for
its mishandling of several
scams.[23][24][25] It has also been
criticized for dragging its feet
investigating prominent politicians, such
as P. V. Narasimha Rao, Jayalalithaa, Lalu
Prasad Yadav, Mayawati and Mulayam
Singh Yadav; this tactic leads to their
acquittal or non-prosecution.[26]

Bofors scandal

In January 2006 it was discovered that

the CBI had quietly unfrozen bank
accounts belonging to Italian
businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, one of
those accused in the 1986 Bofors
scandal which tainted the government of
Rajiv Gandhi.[27] The CBI was responsible
for the inquiry into the Bofors case.
Associates of then-prime minister Rajiv
Gandhi were linked to alleged payoffs
made during the mid-1980s by Swedish
arms firm AB Bofors, with US$40 million
in kickbacks moved from Britain and
Panama to secret Swiss banks. The 410
howitzers purchased in the
US$1,300 million arms sale were
reported to be inferior to those offered by
a French competitor.

The CBI, which unfroze ₹21 crore

(US$3.0 million) in a London bank in
accounts held by Bofors, accused
Quattrocchi and his wife Maria in 2006
but facilitated his travel by asking
Interpol to take him off its wanted list on
29 April 2009. After communications
from the CBI, Interpol withdrew the red
corner notice on Quattrocchi.[28]

Hawala scandal

A 1991 arrest of militants in Kashmir led

to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing
evidence of large-scale payments to
national politicians. The Jain hawala
case encompassed former Union
ministers Ajit Kumar Panja and P. Shiv
Shankar, former Uttar Pradesh governor
Motilal Vora, Bharatiya Janata Party
leader Yashwant Sinha. The 20
defendants were discharged by Special
Judge V. B. Gupta in the ₹650-million
case, heard in New Delhi.

The judge ruled that there was no prima

facie evidence against the accused
which could be converted into legal
evidence. Those freed included Bharatiya
Janata Party president L. K. Advani;
former Union ministers V. C. Shukla,
Arjun Singh, Madhavrao Scindia, N. D.
Tiwari and R. K. Dhawan, and former
Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana.
In 1997 a ruling by late Chief Justice of
India J. S. Verma listed about two dozen
guidelines which, if followed, would have
ensured the independence of the
investigating agency. Sixteen years later,
successive governments circumvent the
guidelines and treat the CBI as another
wing of the government. Although the
prosecution was prompted by a public-
interest petition, the cases concluded
with no convictions. In Vineet Narain &
Othrs v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 3386,
the Supreme Court ruled that the Central
Vigilance Commission should have a
supervisory role over the CBI.[29]

Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case

In this case Santosh Kumar Singh, the

alleged murderer of a 25-year-old law
student, was acquitted for what the judge
called "deliberate inaction" by the
investigating team. The accused was the
son of a high-ranking officer in the Indian
Police Service, the reason for the CBI's
involvement. The 1999 judgment noted
that "the influence of the father of the
accused has been there".

Embarrassed by the judgment, CBI

Director R. K. Raghavan appointed two
special directors (P. C. Sharma and Gopal
Achari) to study the judgement. The CBI
appealed the verdict in Delhi High Court
in 2000, and the court issued a warrant
for the accused. The CBI applied for an
early hearing in July 2006; in October the
High Court found Singh guilty of rape and
murder, sentencing him to death.

Sister Abhaya

This case concerns 27 March 1992 death

of a nun who was found in a water well in
the Saint Pius X convent hostel in
Kottayam, Kerala. Five CBI investigations
have failed to yield any suspects.

Sohrabuddin case

The CBI has been accused of supporting

the ruling Congress Party against its
opposition, the BJP. The CBI is
investigating the Sohrabuddin case in
Gujarat; Geeta Johri, also investigating
the case, claimed that the CBI is
pressuring her to falsely implicate former
Gujarat minister Amit Shah.[30]

Sant Singh Chatwal case

Sant Singh Chatwal was a suspect in CBI

records for 14 years. The agency had
filed two charge sheets, sent letters
rogatory abroad and sent a team to the
United States to imprison Chatwal and
his wife from 2–5 February 1997. On 30
May 2007 and 10 August 2008 former
CBI directors Vijay Shankar and Ashwani
Kumar, respectively, signed no-challenge
orders on the imprisonment. Later, it was
decided not to appeal their release.
This closed a case of bank fraud in which
Chatwal had been embroiled for over a
decade. Along with four others, Chatwal
was charged with being part of a
"criminal conspiracy" to defraud the Bank
of India's New York branch of
₹28.32 crore (US$4.1 million). Four
charges were filed by the CBI, with
Chatwal named a defendant in two. The
other two trials are still in progress. RTI
applicant Krishnanand Tripathi was
denied access to public information
concerning the closed cases. The Central
Information Commission later ordered
the CBI to disclose the information;
however, the CBI is exempt from the RTI
Act (see above). Chatwal is a recipient of
the Padma Bhushan.[31][32][33]

Malankara Varghese murder case

This case concerns 5 December 2002

death of T. M. Varghese (also known as
Malankara Varghese), a member of the
Malankara Orthodox Church managing
committee and a timber merchant.
Varghese Thekkekara, a priest and
manager of the Angamali diocese of the
rival Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
(part of the Syriac Orthodox Church), was
charged with murder and conspiracy on 9
May 2010. Thekkekara was not arrested
after he was charged, for which the CBI
was criticised by the Kerala High Court
and the media.[34]

Bhopal gas tragedy

The CBI was publicly seen as ineffective

in trying the 1984 Bhopal disaster case.
Former CBI joint director B. R. Lall has
said that he was asked to remain soft on
extradition for Union Carbide CEO Warren
Anderson[35] and drop the charges (which
included culpable homicide). Those
accused received two-year sentences.[36]

2G spectrum case

The UPA government has been accused

of allocating 2G spectrum to
corporations at very low prices through
corrupt and illegal means. The Supreme
Court cited the CBI many times for its
tardiness in the investigations;[37][38] only
after the court began monitoring its
investigations[39][40][41] were high-profile
arrests made.

Indian coal allocation scam

This is a political scandal concerning the

Indian UPA government's allocation of
the nation's coal deposits to private
companies by Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh, which cost the government
₹10,673.03 billion (US$150 billion). CBI
director Ranjit Sinha submitted an
affidavit in the Supreme Court that the
coal-scam status report prepared by the
agency was shared with Congress Party
law minister Ashwani Kumar "as desired
by him" and with secretary-level officers
from the prime minister's office (PMO)
and the coal ministry before presenting it
to the court.[42]

2008 Noida double murder case

This is a double murder case of 14-year-

old girl Aarushi Talwar and 45-year-old
Hemraj Banjade from Noida, India. On 26
November 2013, Parents of girl named
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were sentenced
to life imprisonment for the twin
murders.[43] In January 2014, the Talwars
challenged the decision in the Allahabad
High Court.[44] The High Court's acquitted
them of all charges on 12 October 2017
because of the lack of 'irresistible
proof'.[45] The Allahabad HC in its verdict
said that there were loopholes in the
evidence which found the parents not
guilty. Court also said that CBI tampered
evidences and tutored witnesses.
Questions arose by nation on
investigation and judgement given by CBI
court.[46][47][48][49]

Autonomy
Demanding independent investigations,
the CBI said that although it deferred to
the government's authority in non-
corruption cases the agency felt that
sufficient financial and administrative
powers (including a minimum three-year
tenure to ensure "functional autonomy")
were required by the director.

"As such, it is necessary that the director,

CBI, should be vested with ex-officio
powers of the Secretary to the
Government of India, reporting directly to
the minister, without having to go through
the DoPT", the agency said, adding that
financial powers were not enough and it
wanted a separate budget allocation.[50]
Some form of autonomy has been
granted by the Supreme Court of India to
CBI when it held that CBI can prosecute
senior bureaucrats without central
government's permission. Indian
Supreme Court also held that Section 6A
of DSPE Act is unconstitutional.

Constitutional status
This section needs to be updated.
Learn more

Gauhati High Court had given a verdict

on 6 November 2013, that CBI is
unconstitutional and does not hold a
legal status.[51] However, the Supreme
Court of India stayed this verdict when
challenged by the central government
and next hearing on this is fixed on 6
December 2013.[52] Some legal experts
believe that the ultimate solution for
Indian government is to formulate a law
for CBI as sooner or later the Supreme
Court may hold the constitution of CBI
unconstitutional.

Conviction rate
The CBI has a high conviction rate:

Year Conviction rate

2011 67%[53]

2010 70.8%[54]

2009 N/A

2008 66.2%[55]

2007 67.7%[56]

See also
 Enforcement Directorate in the Ministry
of Finance (India)

References
1. "OVER ALL VACANCY POSITION OF
CBI AS ON 01.03.2017" (PDF). p. 01.
Retrieved 21 March 2017.
2. "IPS officer Rishi Kumar Shukla
appointed new CBI director" , Times
of India, 2 February 2019
3. http://www.cbi.gov.in/aboutus/cbirol
es.php
4. "A Brief History of CBI" . Central
Bureau of Investigation, Government
of India. Archived from the original
on 18 August 2019.