Central Bureau of Investigation

WHAT IS CBI?

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has a historical backdrop originating from the issuance of an ordinance by the Government of India in 1943 during World War II. This ordinance established a special police force for investigating certain offenses related to the affairs of the Central Government. Subsequently, in 1946, the Parliament enacted the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act to establish a specialized agency empowered to make inquiries and investigations into specified offenses.

Section 5 of the DSPE Act confers authority upon the Central Government, with the concurrence of State Governments, to extend the jurisdiction of the Special Police Establishment (SPE) to all States. The SPE is conceived as supplementary to state police forces, possessing significant investigative powers in cases specified under section 5 concerning offenses outlined in section 3 of the DSPE Act. Notably, the exercise of these powers in a State requires the consent of the respective State Government.

The present form of the CBI emerged in 1963, through a Home Ministry Resolution No. 4/31/61-T dated 1.4.1963 in response to recommendations from the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, also known as the Santhanam Committee. This resolution outlined the types of cases entrusted to the CBI, which continues to derive its legal investigative powers from the DSPE Act. Over time, the CBI has evolved beyond its initial focus on anti-corruption activities and is increasingly tasked with investigating conventional crimes, as well as economic and banking offenses.

According to the Report of the Indian Review Commission (IRC), the CBI is held accountable to the courts for cases it investigates and reports administrative matters to the Department of Personnel and Training. Despite the supportive role played by the Personnel Department, it does not oversee the agency's investigations. The CBI regularly provides the Government with monthly reports detailing the number of cases under investigation, chargesheets filed in courts, and cases awaiting prosecution sanction. The Central Bureau of Investigation is the domestic crime investigating agency of India. It operates under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. The CBI's power to investigate cases is derived from Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE, 1946)

OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF CBI

CBI as defined in legislation(s)

Section 2 (c): The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998

“Central Bureau of Investigation” (CBI) means the organisation set up under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 read with the Resolution of the Government of India No. 4/31/61-T/MHA dated 1-4-1963;

Section 3: The Central Bureau Of Investigation Bill, 2013 [Bill No. XLII of 2013]

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, there shall be constituted by the Central Government an investigation Bureau to be known as the Central Bureau of Investigation for prevention, investigation and prosecution of scheduled offences and such other offences as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time

(2) The Bureau shall be headed by an officer to be designated as the Director.

(3) The Bureau shall comprise of such officers and other personnel of the rank of Special/Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, Investigation Officer and such other personnel as may be prescribed by the Central Government

CBI as defined in official government report(s)

The CBI in its present form came into being in 1963 through a Resolution adopted by the Government of India pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption (Santhanam Committee)

CBI as defined in case law(s)

In the Advance Insurance Co. Ltd case, 1970, a Constitution Bench held that the definition of “State”, as contained in The General Clauses Act, includes Union Territories as well.

• Hence the CBI, being a force constituted for Union Territories as recognised under the DSPE can conduct investigation into the territories of the States only with their consent.

Legal provision(s) relating to CBI

Appointments

The provisions of Appointment governed by Section 4BA of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946

The Director of the CBI is appointed by the Central Government on the recommendations of a committee composed of the Prime Minister— Chairperson, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha—Member and Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him— Member.

The Central Government appoints the Director of Prosecution in CBI on the recommendation of Central Vigilance Commission.

The Central Government shall appoint officers to the posts of the level of Superintendent of Police and above except Director, and also recommend the extension or curtailment of the tenure of such officers in the Delhi Special Police Establishment, on the recommendation of a committee consisting of: -appointment of

1. Central Vigilance Commissioner—Chairperson;
2. Vigilance Commissioners—Members;
3. Secretary to the Government of India in charge of the Ministry of Home—Member;
4. Secretary to the Government of India in charge of the Department of Personnel—Member:

Provided that the Committee shall consult the Director before submitting its recommendation to the Central Government. The proposals for extension of tenure may be put up to the Committee in due time.

The CBI Bill, 2013 proposes amendment to the above section which is produced as follows:

The amended Section 4A describes the process of appointing the Director of the Delhi Special Police Establishment by the Central Government. The Director was appointed based on the recommendation of a Committee led by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, with other members including Vigilance Commissioners and officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Cabinet Secretariat. The Committee had considered the views of the outgoing Director and recommended a panel of officers from the Indian Police Service based on seniority, integrity, and experience in anti-corruption cases.

Once appointed, the Director had held office for a minimum of two years and could not be transferred without the consent of the Committee. The Committee, in consultation with the Director, had also recommended officers for positions of Superintendent of Police and above and had advised on the extension or curtailment of their tenure in the Delhi Special Police Establishment. The Central Government had then taken necessary actions based on these recommendations.

Further, the CBI Bill, 2013 details the appointment of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as governed by a committee constituted by the Central Government. This committee includes the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha as the Chairperson, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, a sitting Judge from the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India, the Central Vigilance Commissioner, and a retired Director of the former Central Bureau of Investigation. Except for specific provisions outlined in this section, the supervisory authority over the CBI lies with this Committee. Furthermore, in collaboration with the Director, this Committee recommends individuals for positions of Assistant Director and higher within the Bureau, and also advises on extending or reducing the tenure of these officers. Once these recommendations are made, the Central Government is responsible for implementing them by issuing appropriate orders.

The tenure of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) spans a minimum of two years from the commencement of their term. However, this tenure can be altered if the Director is transferred before the completion of the two-year term, requiring prior consent from the Committee overseeing CBI appointments.

Additionally, the Director assumes the responsibility of administering the Bureau. They wield administrative authority as outlined and prescribed by the Committee constituted under section 4 of the governing legislation.

Strength of CBI

The CBI is bolstered by its diverse multidisciplinary composition, drawing officers from various services and professions. As of December 31, 2021, out of the sanctioned strength of 7273 positions, 5740 officers were in place while 1533 posts remained vacant. These vacancies spanned different ranks, including Special/Additional Directors, Joint Directors, Deputy Inspector-Generals of Police, and various other positions, revealing critical gaps in staffing levels. Moreover, vacancies extended to specialized roles such as Law Officers, Technical Officers, Ministerial Staff, and Canteen staff. Filling these vacancies is imperative to maintain the operational capacity and effectiveness of the CBI across its diverse functions and responsibilities.

Jurisdiction

Section 3 of the DSPE Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify the offences or class of offences, which are to be investigated by the CBI.

To facilitate collaboration between the Special Police Establishment and the Ministries/ Departments of the Government, directives were initially issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Railway Board, and the Army, Naval, and Air Headquarters, along with the Defence Production Organisation. However, to streamline and unify these guidelines, a single directive was later introduced, vide the Affairs Office Memorandum No. 371/13/66-AVD(III) dated 25.06.1969.

The latest revised version of the directive, encompassing all the amendments, was issued through the Office Memorandum No. 371/13/87-AVD.III dated 19.09.1988 by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT).

The investigative jurisdiction between the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) Anti Corruption Division and State Police Forces is governed by a specific protocol to streamline their respective roles. This protocol, established under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, aims to prevent redundant efforts and ensure efficient collaboration between the entities.

Cases Primarily Involving Central Government Affairs:

The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the CBI handles cases primarily centered around Central Government employees or matters directly associated with the Central Government. Even if State Government employees are involved in such cases, the SPE conducts the investigation. However, the State Police is kept informed about these cases and is expected to provide necessary assistance during the investigation process.

Cases Centred on State Government Affairs:

Instances predominantly related to State Government employees or pertaining to State Government affairs, even if they involve certain Central Government employees, are within the jurisdiction of the State Police. The SPE is notified of such cases and extends support to the State Police if required during the investigative process. In situations where the State Police's investigation involves a Central Government employee, the requests for prosecution sanction from the competent Central Government authority are routed through the SPE.

CBI’s General Consent

Section 6 of DSPE delineates the necessity of prior approval from the Central Government for any inquiry or investigation conducted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The requirement for this approval specifically applies to cases involving alleged offences committed by high-ranking Central Government employees, namely those at the level of Joint Secretary and above, along with officers appointed by the Central Government in various entities like corporations, government companies, societies, or local authorities under its ownership or control.

However, it carves out an exception to this mandate. In cases where an individual is immediately arrested at the scene on charges of accepting or attempting to accept any form of gratification, excluding legal remuneration as specified in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, prior approval from the Central Government is not deemed necessary for the inquiry or investigation to proceed.

The CBI Bill 2013 proposes addition of Section 6AApproval of Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation: which is reproduced as follows:

6A. (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to—

(a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above; and

(b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The (DSPE) Act governing CBI, and before beginning an investigation into a crime in a state, it is required to obtain the consent of the state government in question. States typically provide general consent for the CBI to seamlessly investigate corruption cases involving central government employees in their states. This basically means that consent is given by default, and the CBI may start an investigation into a case based on the assumption that consent has already been given. The consent given to the CBI can be either general or case-specific. The CBI must apply for consent on a case-by-case basis in the first form and cannot act prior to receiving consent. CBI would have to ask the state government for its permission in every case, even before taking even the smallest action, if there was no general agreement

The withdrawal of general consent of CBI to investigate has been answered in Rajya Sabha

Specific Consent is when a general consent is withdrawn, CBI needs to seek case-wise consent for investigation from the concerned state government. If specific consent is not granted, the CBI officials will not have the power of police personnel when they enter that state.

The Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, while upheld the power of the Constitutional Court to transfer an investigation to the CBI without the consent of the concerned State, emphasised the duty of the State to conduct a fair investigation.

Divisions of CBI

The CBI comprises of the following Divisions, as per Resolution No.4/31/61-T, with effect from 1st April 1963, of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,

1. Anti Corruption Division
2. Special Crimes Division
3. Economic Offences Division
4. Directorate Of Prosecution (Legal Division)
5. Policy And Coordination Division
6. Administration And Training Division
7. Central Forensic Science Laboratory

Further, to uphold probity, integrity, fairness, and transparency in public life, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued Office Memorandum No. 130/1/66-AVD on May 5, 1966. Through this memorandum, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was entrusted with various Anti-Corruption and Preventive Vigilance functions concerning Central Government Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings, and other entities. These functions include:

1. Preparation of the Agreed List of Suspect Officers of Gazetted status.
2. Preparation of a list of Officers of Doubtful Integrity.
3. Preparation of the Agreed List of Points and Places of Corruption.
4. Preparation of a list of Undesirable Contactmen.
5. Providing inputs to Departments, Undertakings, or Administrations for the preparation of the list of Unscrupulous Contractors, Suppliers, Firms, and Clearing Agents.
6. Conducting Joint Surprise Checks and Special Drives.
7. Preparation of Appreciation Reports regarding modes of corruption in various Government Departments and Public Sector Undertakings.
8. Providing inputs on the Vigilance Status of officers for appointment to key positions.
9. Discreet Verification & Scrutiny of Complaints and Source Information Reports.

In 1987, internal work distribution categorized investigations into the Anti-Corruption Division and Special Crimes Division, the latter addressing conventional crimes and economic offenses. Following the Securities Scam of 1992, a separate Banking Frauds and Securities Cell was created. Specialized cells like the Special Investigation Team (SIT), formed in 1991 for the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, and the Special Investigation Cell in 1992 for the Babri Masjid demolition, showcased the agency's adaptability to handle high-profile cases.

The Economic Offences Division (EOD) within the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was established through Resolution No. 24/66/64-AVD, dated June 29, 1964. Originally tasked with investigating economic offenses, the EOD's scope expanded over time to encompass various crimes such as frauds in banks, stock exchanges, financial institutions, misappropriation of public funds, and more. This evolution was outlined in subsequent resolutions.

The Legal Division of CBI was reconstituted as the Directorate of Prosecution in compliance with the Supreme Court's direction in Vineet Narain v. Union of India case, through Government of India's OM No. 201/5/2000-AVD.II dated 09.07.2001.

Further organizational restructuring occurred on 01.01.2009, dividing the CBI into Branches supervised by Zones. A new zone, the "Technical Forensic & Coordination Zone" (TFC), was created at CBI Headquarters, responsible for technological upgradation, including the functioning of Technological and Forensic Support Units (TAFSU), and strengthening inter-branch, inter-state, and international cooperation and coordination.

In 1968, the Ministry of Home Affairs established the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL-CBI) for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Delhi Police. This laboratory operates under CBI's administrative control and provides expert opinions in various forensic science aspects related to crime investigation. Beyond assisting CBI and Delhi Police, CFSL-CBI extends support to other agencies and actively contributes to teaching and training initiatives.

Cyber Crime Investigation Initiatives

The Ministry of Home Affairs, vide U.O.No.22011/1/2001-PMA dated 09.02.2001, nominated Cyber Crime Investigation Cell (CCIC) of the CBI as the nodal agency for developing national capabilities for fighting cyber-crime and to develop training courses for cyber-crime investigation for state police officers. In addition, Cabinet Secretary, vide DO letter No.281/29/6/2000 dated 03.06.2002, has designated this unit as the nodal point for investigating cases of hacking/defacement of Government Websites. CBI is the Contact Point for G-8 24/7 Network for making requests for preservation of electronic data.

Cyber & Hi-Tech Crime Investigation & Training (CHCIT) Centre

In June 2010, the Ministry of Information Technology established the Cyber & Hi-Tech Crime Investigation & Training (CHCIT) Centre at the CBI Academy. This Center focuses on capacity building in the areas of cybercrime investigation through training and technology provision. It aims to upgrade Cyber/Hi-Tech Crime investigation capabilities for CBI, state police, and law enforcement agencies in South Asia and the Asia-Pacific region.

Anti Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU)

The Anti Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) was set up, subsuming the Criminal Intelligence Cell, to specialize in the area of illegal human trafficking, especially trafficking of children and women. This unit, designated in cases under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, collects and analyzes data to conduct operations against organized trafficking gangs.

Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU)

Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) was created in CBI in the year 2007 for collection, collation and dissemination of intelligence with regard to economic crimes. The specialized unit also coordinates with other stakeholders like the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB), Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) etc. Units under the Economic Offences Divisions were designated to handle offenses related to narcotics & drugs, arms smuggling, antique theft and smuggling, wildlife crimes, counterfeiting, and fake Indian currency notes (FICN).

Specific units within the Economic Offences Divisions were dedicated to investigating niche areas such as narcotics & drugs, theft of arts/antiquities, counterfeiting fake currency notes (FICN), and wildlife crimes.

In response to a rising number of bank fraud complaints, a dedicated Bank Fraud Complaints Cell was established under the BS&F Zone in September 2019. The purpose of this centralized cell is to efficiently receive and address bank fraud complaints, ensuring a swift and earnest response to such cases

Sports Integrity Unit (2014)

Established in 2014, the Sports Integrity Unit investigates matters concerning corruption in sports, including sports bodies, match-fixing, doping, illegal betting, and other offenses related to sports by individuals or organized crime syndicates.

MAC & Linux Forensic Lab

An exclusive MAC & Linux Forensic Lab was established at the CBI Academy. Recognized as a Centre of Excellence in Cyber Forensics by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2014, this lab is equipped with the latest technology for forensic data recovery from Apple and Linux devices.

Online Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (OCSAE) Unit

A specialized unit, the Online Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (OCSAE) Prevention/Investigation Unit, was created to collect, collate, and disseminate information related to online child sexual abuse and exploitation. This unit investigates offenses covered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

CBI has divided its territorial functions into various zones

1. Delhi Zone
   • Jurisdiction: State of Rajasthan and Delhi
2. Bhopal Zone
   • Jurisdiction: State of Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh
3. Lucknow Zone
   • Jurisdiction: All over Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
4. Chandigarh Zone
   • Jurisdiction: UT Chandigarh, Punjab, Haryana, J&K & Himachal Pradesh
5. Patna Zone
   • Jurisdiction: State of Bihar and Jharkhand
6. Kolkata Zone
   • Jurisdiction: State of West Bengal, Orissa, Port Blair
7. North East Zone
   • Jurisdiction: Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur & Nagaland
8. Chennai Zone
   • Jurisdiction: State of Tamil Nadu, Kerala & Pondicherry
9. Hyderabad Zone
   • Jurisdiction: State of Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka
10. Mumbai Zone
    • Jurisdiction: State of Maharashtra and Goa
11. Anti Corruption Head Quarter (AC-HQ) Zone
    • Jurisdiction: All Over India
12. Economic Offences Zone (EOZ) - I
    • Jurisdiction: Economic offences related matters in all over India.
13. Economic Offences Zone (EOZ) - II
    • Jurisdiction: States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Rajasthan and Union Territories of Daman, Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli.

CBI Cases

• Types of CBI cases: CBI cases can be classified into three broad categories: anti-corruption cases, economic offences cases, and special crimes cases. Anti-corruption cases involve allegations of bribery, misuse of official position, disproportionate assets, etc. Economic offences cases involve fraud, cheating, forgery, money laundering, etc. Special crimes cases involve terrorism, murder, kidnapping, cybercrime, etc.
• Procedure of CBI cases: CBI cases follow a standard procedure of registration, investigation, prosecution, and trial, as laid down in CrPC. Registration is the process of recording the information about the alleged offence in a First Information Report (FIR) or a Preliminary Enquiry (PE). Investigation is the process of collecting evidence and verifying the facts of the case. Prosecution is the process of filing a charge sheet or a closure report in the court, based on the outcome of the investigation. Trial is the process of presenting the evidence and arguments before the judge, who decides the guilt or innocence of the accused.

During the year 2021, Courts delivered Judgements in 360 Court Cases of CBI. Out of these, 202 cases resulted in Conviction, 82 in Acquittal, 15 in Discharge and 61 cases were disposed of for other reasons. The conviction rate was 67.56%

• Reforms of CBI cases: CBI cases require several reforms, such as accountability, transparency, modernization, and coordination. Accountability is the need to make the CBI answerable and responsible for its actions and decisions, to the Parliament, the judiciary, and the public. Transparency is the need to make the CBI more open and accessible, by disclosing its policies, procedures, and performance. Modernization is the need to upgrade the CBI’s skills, equipment, and methods, to cope with the changing nature and complexity of crimes. Coordination is the need to improve the CBI’s collaboration and cooperation with other agencies, such as state police, central agencies, foreign agencies, etc.

A total number of 10232 Court Cases were pending under trial in various courts as on 31.12. 2021

Enquiry and Investigation Process

Section 6, 7 of CBI Bill 2013 outlines the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the Bureau concerning the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of specified offences. It empowers the Bureau to act in cases listed in Schedule I, along with any additional offences related to matters specified in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Central Government holds the authority, through notifications in the Official Gazette, to include further offences under this category from time to time.

Similarly, the Bureau is authorised to act on cases listed in Schedule II, along with any additional offences related to matters specified in List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution concerning Union territories. The Central Government, through notifications in the Official Gazette, can include more offences in this category as well.

Additionally, the Central Government, in consultation with the Committee, holds the power to extend the jurisdiction of Bureau officers to any area, including railway areas within a State, for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of offences listed in section 6(ii). However, it's stipulated that the prior consent of the State Government is necessary for the investigation and prosecution of offences specified in section 6(ii).

In the case of Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226] and others, widely known as the Jain Hawala Case, a set of significant directions were issued on December 18, 1997. These directions aimed to bring about reforms in the oversight and functioning of investigative agencies in India. The key directives from the case included:

1. Granting statutory status to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
2. Assigning the CVC with the responsibility of ensuring the efficient functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
3. While the government remains accountable for the CBI's operations, introducing visible objectivity in the oversight mechanism by entrusting the CVC with the superintendence over the CBI's functioning.
4. Mandating that the CBI report to the CVC regarding the cases undertaken for investigation, the progress of these investigations, and the status of cases in which charge sheets are filed.
5. Empowering the CVC to review the progress of all cases submitted by the CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants. This includes cases that are pending with competent authorities, especially those facing delays or refusals in granting sanctions.

Handover of Complaints to SPE/CBI

Upon deciding to refer a case to the Special Police Establishment (SPE / CBI), unless specific reasons dictate otherwise, complaints earmarked for investigation should be promptly handed over to them.

Registration of Regular Cases

If the available information indicates a clear cognizable offence or substantial substance, the CBI can initiate a regular case (RC) under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Further, the break-up of the disposal of 798 Regular Cases (RCs) from investigation in 2021, is depicted as under:

Preliminary Inquiry

When available information necessitates verification before formal investigation, a Preliminary Inquiry (P.E.) is conducted. As soon as this inquiry establishes the credibility of the allegations, a regular case can be registered.

The investigation in cases was expedited in the year 2021 and as a result, investigation was completed in 884 cases comprising of 798 Regular Cases (RCs) and 86 Preliminary Enquiries (PEs).

Out of 86 PEs, 21 PEs were converted into Regular Cases (RCs) and RDA was recommended in 10 PEs. The break-up of the disposal of 86 Preliminary Enquiries (PEs), is depicted as under:-

Handling Cases Outside SPE's Jurisdiction

Cases indicating prima facie evidence of a criminal offence but falling outside the Special Police Establishment's investigative powers are handed over to local police authorities. This decision-making process considers limited resources, prioritising inter-state, international, bribery, and corruption-related cases for the CBI's attention.

Communication and Collaboration

Engagement with Department Heads: The SPE typically involves the head of the relevant department or office before or soon after initiating any enquiry (P.E. or R.C.). This practice extends to cases requiring premises search.

Involvement of Defence Personnel: In cases involving defence personnel, regardless of rank, local administrative authorities are consulted at the earliest stage. Consultation with Army/Air/Naval Headquarters is crucial, and if these bodies agree to enquiries or investigations, the local administrative authority is informed directly. The SPE ensures coordination with local administrative authorities before commencing any enquiry involving defence personnel.

CBI furnishes to the Government monthly reports indicating the number of cases taken up for investigation; number in which charge-sheets have been filed in courts; number of cases where sanction for prosecution is awaited from competent authorities etc.

As per Crime in India, 2022 Statistics (Volume III), the details of CBI’s results of investigation and seizures are as follows:

CBI Courts

CBI courts are another form of district court, these courts are made to deal with cases to be specially dealt with by the CBI. The CBI Courts are established under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

If a State Government thinks that with its limitations it cannot do justice to investigation it makes an application to central govt. home ministry to hand over the case to CBI and By a gazette notification hands over the case to CBI. If the case is handed over to the CBI , a Special Court has to be constituted. State government can pass a resolution for setting up of CBI courts.  There is no special provision for CBI courts under CrPC.

Matters referred to the CBI are guided by provisions within the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). A separate Criminal Petition under section 482 of CR.P.C. must be filed before the jurisdictional High Court to request the transfer of a case to the CBI. This transfer is typically sought when confidence in the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police diminishes or for various other reasons warranting CBI involvement.

Following a CBI court decision, the avenue for appeal resides in the high court, mirroring the process for appeals from district court verdicts.

The appointment of a CBI Judge involves selecting a CBI Magistrate who holds the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class. These officers are appointed by the High Court and typically serve a tenure of three years on deputation from their regular court.

For serious crimes falling under Session Cases, CBI courts are presided over by an officer holding the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge.

There is an urgent need of rationalising the establishment of special CBI courts, as it may not be humanly possible for one or two courts in a state to expedite all the trials or take up the same on a day-to¬day basis in terms of Section 309 of the IPC

The conviction rate of CBI for 2018-2022 was answered by Rajya Sabha on 06.04.2023, by Dr. Jitendra Singh, the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space.

Further, with a view to improve the conviction rate, the strategy followed by the CBI includes the following measures: -

1. Conduct of investigations with the aid of legal support so that the best possible evidence is collected and presented to the trial Court.
2. Meticulous follow up during trial so that evidence is presented in the best possible manner.
3. Harmonious and synergistic working of Executive Officers in tandem with the Law Officers of the Directorate of Prosecution.
4. Enhancing the capabilities in terms of skills, resources and coordination

In a written response to a query in the Rajya Sabha, on 08.03.2018, Dr. Jitendra Singh, the provided detailed information regarding the actions taken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in cases filed during the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 up to January 31, 2018.

According to the provided data, the CBI has filed charge-sheets in 2276 cases during the specified three-year period. In instances where cases were discharged or quashed by the courts, a thorough examination and analysis were conducted at various levels to determine the necessity of filing an appeal. Over the last three years, a total of 14 cases were discharged or quashed by the courts.

Out of these 14 cases, the CBI has made decisions in 11 cases. Notably, appeals have been filed in various Hon’ble High Courts against the orders in 6 cases, while in one case, an appeal has been filed in the District Session Court. Additionally, in 4 cases, it has been decided not to pursue further legal action.

OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF CBI

Section 2 (c): The Central Vigilance Commission Bill, 1998

“Central Bureau of Investigation” (CBI) means the organisation set up under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 read with the Resolution of the Government of India No. 4/31/61-T/MHA dated 1-4-1963;

Section 3: The Central Bureau Of Investigation Bill, 2013 [Bill No. XLII of 2013]

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, there shall be constituted by the Central Government an investigation Bureau to be known as the Central Bureau of Investigation for prevention, investigation and prosecution of scheduled offences and such other offences as may be notified by the Central Government from time to time

(2) The Bureau shall be headed by an officer to be designated as the Director.

(3) The Bureau shall comprise of such officers and other personnel of the rank of Special/Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, Investigation Officer and such other personnel as may be prescribed by the Central Government

APPEARANCE OF CBI IN OFFICIAL DATABASES

Parliamentary Questions

In a written response to a query in the Rajya Sabha today, Dr. Jitendra Singh, the Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), MoS PMO, Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, provided detailed information regarding the actions taken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in cases filed during the years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 up to January 31, 2018.

According to the provided data, the CBI has filed charge-sheets in 2276 cases during the specified three-year period. In instances where cases were discharged or quashed by the courts, a thorough examination and analysis were conducted at various levels to determine the necessity of filing an appeal. Over the last three years, a total of 14 cases were discharged or quashed by the courts.

Out of these 14 cases, the CBI has made decisions in 11 cases. Notably, appeals have been filed in various Hon’ble High Courts against the orders in 6 cases, while in one case, an appeal has been filed in the District Session Court. Additionally, in 4 cases, it has been decided not to pursue further legal action.

Dr. Jitendra Singh's statement highlights the diligence with which the CBI handles cases that are discharged or quashed, emphasizing the careful consideration and analysis undertaken before determining the course of action, including the decision to file appeals in higher courts.

Interpol Notices

INTERPOL Notices are international requests for cooperation or alerts allowing police in member countries to share critical crime-related information.

Types of Notice

1. Red Notice: To seek the location and arrest of persons wanted for prosecution or to serve a sentence. CBI
2. Yellow Notice: To help locate missing persons, often minors, or to help identify persons who are unable to identify themselves. CBI
3. Blue Notice: To collect additional information about a person’s identity, location or activities in relation to a criminal investigation.         
4. Black Notice: To seek information on unidentified bodies.
5. Green Notice: To provide warning about a person’s criminal activities, where the person is considered to be a possible threat to public safety.
6. Orange Notice: To warn of an event, a person, an object or a process representing a serious and imminent threat to public safety.
7. Purple Notice: To seek or provide information on modus operandi, objects, devices and concealment methods used by criminals.
8. INTERPOL–United Nations Security Council Special Notice: Issued for entities and individuals who are the targets of UN Security Council Sanctions Committees

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND CBI

There are various intelligence agencies and organisations in India which work in tandem with CBI:

1. National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO): NTRO operates as a technical intelligence agency positioned under the National Security Advisor in India. Formed in 2004, it includes bodies like the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) and the National Institute of Cryptology Research and Development (NICRD). NICRD is a pioneering institution in Asia dedicated to cryptologic education and research. NTRO focuses on technical intelligence gathering and safeguarding critical information infrastructure.
2. Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW): R&AW serves as India's primary foreign intelligence agency, involved in foreign intelligence gathering, counter-terrorism, advising policymakers, and promoting India's foreign strategic interests. It operates various specialized units like the Aviation Research Centre (ARC), which conducts aerial surveillance, photo reconnaissance, and monitoring of borders. The Radio Research Centre (RRC) focuses on communication and signal intelligence, while the Electronics and Technical Services (ETS) specializes in electronic intelligence, including electronic warfare roles.
3. Intelligence Bureau (IB): The IB operates as India's internal intelligence agency, handling domestic security and counter-intelligence matters. Established in 1887, it plays a crucial role in maintaining internal security and countering threats within the country.
4. National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC): NCCC functions as an operational cybersecurity and e-surveillance agency, responsible for screening communication metadata and coordinating intelligence gathering activities across other agencies.
5. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI): DRI serves as India's apex anti-smuggling intelligence agency, focusing on preventing smuggling activities, including firearms, narcotics, counterfeit currency, and environmental products. It operates under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and works toward safeguarding national and economic security.
6. Joint Cipher Bureau: This bureau collaborates closely with the IB and R&AW, specializing in cryptanalysis, encryption of sensitive data, and managing cryptographic issues related to public and private key management.
7. All India Radio Monitoring Service (AIRMS): AIRMS centrally monitors broadcasts within India and foreign broadcasts relevant to India. It functions in cooperation with R&AW and Military Intelligence.
8. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA): Established in 2002, the DIA is the nodal agency for defence-related intelligence, overseeing assets like the Directorate of Signals Intelligence and the Defence Image Processing and Analysis Centre (DIPAC). It coordinates various intelligence operations related to information warfare, signals intelligence, and satellite-based image acquisition.
9. Central Monitoring Organisation (CMO): Under the Ministry of Defence, CMO monitors the use of radio spectrum by various entities, including Defence, Police, AIR, Railways, PSUs, etc.
10. Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring (TERM): Formerly known as Vigilance Telecom Monitoring, TERM operates within the Department of Telecommunications, focusing on vigilance, monitoring, and security of telecom networks. It also runs the Central Monitoring System (CMS), an electronic surveillance program.
11. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB): NCRB is responsible for collecting, analyzing, and maintaining crime-related data as defined by Indian laws. It assists investigators in linking crimes to perpetrators, thereby aiding law enforcement and policymaking.

Slight differences and nuances in the concept

Aspect	CBI	State Police Forces
Scope of Work	Focuses solely on investigating criminal cases	Handles a wide range of tasks and cases
Supervision & Crime Investigation	Undertakes high-level supervision and investigation	Handles varying levels of supervision and crime investigation
Use of Physical Force	Rarely requires physical force in operations	Often utilizes physical force in dealings with the public
Reporting Structure	Functions under the Union Government, reports to the Prime Minister	Reports to the Chief Minister of the respective State

CHALLENGES FACED BY CBI

1. Political Interference: The CBI has often been accused of being influenced by political pressures and agendas. The Supreme Court's "caged parrot speaking its master’s voice" [Vineet Narain & Others vs. Union of India & Another,  (1998) 1 SCC 226] remark highlighted concerns that the agency, instead of functioning autonomously, might be directed or controlled by political authorities. This perception undermines the agency's credibility and independence in conducting impartial investigations.
2. Image Issues: The CBI has faced severe criticism for mishandling prominent cases, leading to public scepticism about its competence. High-profile cases that were either poorly investigated or resulted in questionable outcomes have tarnished the agency's reputation. Such incidents erode public trust and confidence in its capabilities to deliver fair and unbiased investigation outcomes.
3. Transparency Concerns: As the CBI is not subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act,due to the exemption clause under section 24 of the RTI Act, which has been held in various cases, like Shri V K Mittal Vs. CPIO, National Technical Research Organisation, Nitin Nayyar v Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.  Thus, its activities lack the transparency required for public oversight. The absence of transparency measures makes it challenging for citizens to access information about the agency's functioning, decision-making processes, and the rationale behind its actions. This opacity raises questions about accountability and creates doubts about the agency's integrity.
4. Employee Mismanagement: There have been allegations of biased recruitment processes within the CBI. Hiring practices that favor certain individuals over others, potentially due to connections or favoritism, can compromise the agency's objectivity and professionalism. Such actions might lead to inefficiencies, weaken the workforce's morale, and raise concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the agency's operations.
5. Constitutional Validity: The Guwahati High Court Navendra Kumar v. Union of Indiait declared the CBI unconstitutional. This decision questioned the agency's legitimacy and authority, challenging whether an organisation formed solely through administrative orders could violate citizens' constitutional rights, particularly the right to life. However, the Supreme Court of India stayed this verdict when challenged by the Central Government. The court referred to the Constitutional Assembly Debates to obtain a better understanding of Entry 8 of List-I, ‘Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation’ . The Constitution makers were against permitting the Center to make investigation into crimes.