The country’s high-profile investigating agency CBI is yet again caught in a political storm. This time around, it’s the Bharateeya Janata Party (BJP), training its guns against this institution for allegedly framing false charges against their senior leader and former Gunjarat Home Minister, Mr Amit Shah, in an alleged fake encounter in which Sohrabuddin was killed and murder of his wife Kausari. But, the ruling Congress at the Centre refutes the BJP’s charge saying that the CBI is acting only on directions for the Supreme Court.

Quite often, the CBI is being criticized or dubbed as an ‘agent’ of the party in power at the Centre – whether of Congress-led UPA government or the BJP-led NDA governments. Yet, over the years, the CBI could establish a reputation for itself of being country’s premier investigative agency with adequate resources to deal with complicated cases; demands were made on it to take up investigation of more cases of conventional crime such as murder, kidnapping, terrorism, etc.

Apart from this, the Supreme Court and even various state High Courts of the country also started entrusting such cases for investigation to the CBI on petitions filed by aggrieved parties. Taking into account the fact that several cases falling under this category were being taken up for investigation by the CBI, it was found expedient to entrust such cases to the Branches having local jurisdiction.

It was therefore decided in 1987 to constitute two investigation divisions in the CBI, namely, Anti-Corruption Division and Special Crimes Division, the latter dealing with cases of conventional crime, besides economic offences. The CBI is a central subject under the Constitution of India, meaning that it reports to the Indian Government and not to the individual states.

Thus far, it is indeed a premier investigating police agency in country. It is an elite force playing a major role in preservation of values in public life and in ensuring the health of the national economy. It is also the nodal police agency in India which coordinates investigation on behalf of Interpol Member countries. The services of its investigating officers are sought for all major investigations in the country. CBI as an organisation is held in high esteem by the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the Parliament and the public. The CBI has to investigate major crimes in the country having interstate and international ramifications. It is also involved in collection of criminal intelligence pertaining to three of its main areas of operation, viz., Anti-Corruption, Economic Crimes and Special Crimes. Well, CBI investigations may have a major impact on the political and economic life of the nation.

Still, it comes under fire, more than needed. In January 2006, it was found that CBI had quietly unfrozen bank accounts of Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, one of the prime accused in the Bofors scandal of 1986 which had tainted the Rajiv Gandhi government. The CBI has been responsible for the inquiry into the Bofors Case. Associates of the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi were linked to alleged pay-offs made in the mid-1980s by the Swedish arms form AB Bofors, with $40 million in kickbacks moved from Britain and Panama to secret Swiss banks. The $1,300 million arms purchase of 410 howitzer field guns involved in the sale were reported to be inferior to those offered by a French competitor.

The CBI, which defreezes Rs 21 crore stashed in a London bank in two accounts held by Bofors scam accused Ottavio Quattrocchi and his wife Maria in 2006, has facilitated his travel across the globe by asking Interpol to take him off the “wanted” list on 29 Apr 2009. Following a communication from the CBI, the Interpol has withdrawn the Red Corner Notice against the Italian. The development that comes barely three weeks before the end of the Manmohan Singh government’s tenure has brought back the issue of the Bofors scandal to the centre stage and ‘dubious’ functioning of this premier institution.

In 1994 two scientists with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and two Indian businessmen were arrested for allegedly conspiring to sell space secrets to two Maldivian women, who were originally described by newspapers as agents of Pakistani intelligence, for money and sex.

The CBI investigation did not reveal the existence of a spy ring, and by early 1995 it was clear that the case was more a product of inexperience and over exuberating on the part of the police and Intelligence Bureau. It was a well planned scheme to remove the then DGP Ramon S by concocted links to Maldivian lady. The scheme was plotted by some officers of Kerala police, the media and Muslim League as DGP was made of sterner stuff. Yet, again the CBI’s role exposed!

In 1991 an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest petition, and yet the court cases of the Hawala scandal eventually all collapsed without convictions. The CBI's role was again criticised. In concluding the Vineet Narain case, the Supreme Court of India directed that the Central Vigilance Commission should be given a supervisory role over the CBI.

Thus far, the CBI has been under a cloud owing to its handling of the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, in which the alleged murderer of a 22-year old law student was acquitted for what the case judge called "deliberate inaction" by the investigating team. The accused was the son of a high ranking officer in the Indian Police Service, due to which the case had been shifted from the regular police force to the CBI.

However, the 1999 judgment commented on how "the influence of the father of the accused has been there". Embarrassed by the judgment, the-then CBI Director, R K Raghavan, requested two Special Directors, P C Sharma and G H Achari, to study the judgement. Subsequently the CBI appealed the verdict in Delhi High court in 2000, after which the High Court issued a bailable warrant against the accused.

The case again shot into limelight in 2006 after much media coverage and public bashing (this was mainly due to a similar acquittal in another high profile case though not handled by the CBI). The CBI filed an application for early hearing in July 2006. The High Court subsequently found Santosh Kumar Singh guilty of rape and murder and awarded death sentence for the same in October 2006.

With that backdrop, can anyone expect that the CBI even in case Amit Shah, establish him guilty in the encounter case? The answer appears to me yet a flat ‘no’ as if this premier institution can prove Shah as Home Minister of a state guilty of encounter, then it would only open ‘Pandora’ box of several others, including the state Home Ministers and high profile IPS officers of their guilty in bumping of either left-wing extremists or other criminals.

In this context I wish to recall how the former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, Mr Jalagam Vengal Rao’s name too was dragged for his government’s excesses during emergency. During the emergency period, maximum number of hardcore left-wing extremists and their sympathizers were killed.

Even for argument sake, if the CBI could establish conclusive evidence to prove Shah guilty instructing his police officers to bump off dreaded criminal like Soharabuddin, then none of those police officers or the Home Ministers, especially of naxal infested states dare to venture. Though many, including some legal luminaries wanted the police to come clean on encounters, can that happen? Can any state or IPS officer dare come forward to fight ever growing terrorism on one hand and the left-wing extremism on the other?

Thus far, the CBI actions, especially in cases such as Gujarat Home Minister’s alleged involvement in Soharabuddin encounter, bound to give room to suspect of ‘political fabrication’ rather than unearthing truth!