SEO

MODULE – 7 CBI, CVC, ED, LOKPAL, STATE ACBX, NCB

DR SATYAJIT MOHANTY, IPS RETD

 Central Bureau of Investigation
 Central Vigilance Commission
 Enforcement Directorate
 Lokpal and Lokayukta
 State ACBx
 Narcotics Control Bureau
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – THE ORIGIN

 At an early stage of World War-II, the Government of India realised that vast increase in expenditure for war
efforts had provided opportunities to unscrupulous and anti-social persons, both officials and non-officials, for
indulging in bribery and corruption at the cost of public and the Government.
 It was felt that Police and other Law Enforcement Agencies under the State Governments were not in a position
to cope with the situation
 An executive order was, therefore, passed by the Government of India in 1941, setting up the Special Police
Establishment (SPE) under a DIG in the then Department of War with mandate to investigate cases of bribery
and corruption in transactions with which War and Supply Department of the Government of India
 At the end of 1942, the activities of the SPE were extended to include cases of corruption on Railways also,
presumably because the Railways were vitally concerned with movement and supply of war materials
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – THE ORIGIN

 In 1943, an Ordinance was issued by the Government of India, by which a Special Police Force was constituted
and vested with powers for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with the departments
of the Central Government committed anywhere in British India.
 As a need for a Central Government Agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption was felt even after the
end of the war, the Ordinance issued in 1943, which had lapsed on 30th September, 1946 was replaced by Delhi
Special Police Establishment Ordinance of 1946.
 Subsequently, the same year Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was brought into existence.
 Delhi Special Police Esst Act 1946.pdf
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – THE ORIGIN

 CBI derives power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
 Section 2 of the Act vests DSPE with jurisdiction to investigate offences in the Union Territories only.
 However, the jurisdiction can be extended by the Central Government to other areas including Railway areas and
States under Section 5(1) of the Act, provided the State Government accords consent under Section 6 of the Act.
 The executive officers of CBI of the rank of Sub Inspector and above, exercise all powers of a station office in-
charge of the police station for the concerned area for the purpose of investigation.
 As per Section 3 of the Act, Special Police Establishment is authorised to investigate only those cases, which are
notified by the Central Government from time to time.
 By 1963 SPE was authorised to investigate offences under 91 different sections of Indian Penal Code and 16 other
Central Acts besides offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
CBI WAS CREATED IN 1964 WITH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
 A growing need was felt for a Central Police Agency at disposal of the Central Government which could
investigate not only cases of bribery and corruption, but also violation of Central fiscal laws, major frauds relating
to Government of India departments and serious crimes committed by organised gangs and professional
criminals.
 Therefore, the Government of India set up Central Bureau of Investigation by a resolution dated 1st April, 1963
 GoI Notification on CBI 1964.pdf
 The Investigation & Anti-Corruption Division (Delhi Special Police Establishment) was entrusted with the
following mandate in the resolution although it continued to derive its jurisdiction and powers from DSPE Act,
1946.
 Cases in which public servants under the control of the Central Government are involved either by themselves
or along with State Government servants and/or other persons.
 Cases in which the interests of the Central Government, or of any public sector project or undertaking, or any
statutory corporation or body set up and financed by the Government of India are involved.
 Cases relating to breaches of Central Laws with the enforcement of which the Government of India is particularly
concerned,
GROWTH AND EXPANSION STAGE

 CBI was further strengthened by addition of an Economic Offences Wing by a Government of India Resolution
dated 29.2.1964.
 At this time, CBI had two investigation Wings; one called the General Offences Wing which dealt with cases of
bribery and corruption involving employees of Central Government/PSUs and the other Economic Offences
Wing, which dealt with cases of violation of fiscal laws.
 With the passage of time, requests were made by various quarters for CBI to take up investigation even in
conventional crimes like assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, crimes committed by extremists,
 Since early 1980's, constitutional courts also started referring cases to CBI for enquiry/investigation on the basis
of petitions filed by the aggrieved persons in cases of murders, dowry deaths, rape etc.
 In view of these developments, it was decided in 1987 to have two investigation Divisions in CBI namely Anti
Corruption Division and Special Crimes Division, the latter dealing with cases of conventional crimes as well as
economic offences.
GROWTH AND EXPANSION STAGE
 (a) Anti Corruption Division- To deal with cases of corruption and fraud committed by public servants of all
Central Government Departments, Central Public Sector Undertakings and Central Financial Institutions.
 (b) Economic Crimes Division - To deal with bank frauds, financial frauds, Import Export & Foreign Exchange
Violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and smuggling of other contraband items
etc.
 (c) Special Crimes Division - To deal with cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides, kidnapping for
ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/underworld.
 Director, CBI as Inspector General of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment, is responsible for the
administration of the organisation.
 With enactment of CVC Act, 2003 the Superintendence of Delhi Special Police Establishment vests with the
Central Government save investigations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which, the
superintendence vests with the Central Vigilance Commission.
 Director, CBI has been provided security of two year tenure in CBI by the CVC Act, 2003.
 The CVC Act also provides mechanism for selection of Director, CBI and other officers of the rank of SP and
above in CBI.
GENERAL CONSENT
 The CBI is governed by The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946, which requires the
investigative agency to obtain the consent of state governments before it can investigate a crime in a particular
state.
 There are two kinds of consent in the form of case-specific consent and general consent
 The part of the act that govern general consent - Section 6, titled ‘Consent of State Government to exercise of
powers and jurisdiction’ - clearly states: “Nothing contained in Sec 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union
territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.”
 “General consent” is normally given to help the CBI seamlessly conduct its investigation into cases of corruption
against central government employees in the concerned state.
 Withdrawal of a consent means that the CBI will not be able to register any fresh case involving a central
government official or a private person without getting case-specific consent from the states.
 As on December 2023, ten states - Punjab, Jharkhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Mizoram,
Telangana, Meghalaya, and Tamil Nadu have withdrawn the general consent – a worrying concern
WHY GENERAL CONSENT IS BEING WITHDRAWN ?

 The agency had investigated 72 politicians during the United Progressive Alliance years of 2004 to 2014, of whom
43 were from the Opposition.
 In contrast, during the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance regime starting 2014, at least 124 prominent
politicians have been probed by the CBI scanner of which 118 were from the Opposition.
 Therefore, not only have the number of opposition politicians being investigated gone up by nearly three times
under NDA government compared to the previous UPA government, the proportion of opposition politicians
among all politicians being investigated by the CBI also jumped from around 60% to 95%.
 As a response to this sharp rise in the political use of the CBI, Opposition-ruled states have withdrawn the
general consent granted to the agency for investigations. (Source Scroll Online, Mar 2023)
INVESTIGATION ABROAD
 Sec 166 A CrPC provides about letter of request to competent authority for investigation in a country or place
outside India – Court having jurisdiction in India to issue – to a Court or an authority in that country or place
competent to deal with such request.
 But sometimes the investigation agency (IA) may require informal information or lead of an offender residing
abroad
 This can be obtained through Interpol or diplomatic channel
 The International Police Cooperation Cell (IPCC) of CBI is the designated agency to coordinate with the
National Central Bureau (NCB) of foreign countries – not the IA
 Requirements: brief of FIR, gist of investigation and inquiry, the details of information required from the NCB or
diplomatic channel
INVESTIGATION ABROAD

 For formal investigation, to collect evidences and gather material evidences the formal legal recourse under 166A
is resorted to
 The Letter Rogatory (Letter of Request) LR is forwarded within the ambit of:
 Mutual Legal Assistant Treaty (MLAT): 40 countries as per CBI website
 MoU/arrangements between India and a requested country
 On the basis of reciprocity in case no treaty or MoU exists
 Principle of dual criminality
 Prior concurrence of MHA is required before moving the court for issue of LR
 LR should contain:
 FIR, documents, details of investigation, particulars of witnesses to be examined, their identities, description of
documents to be collected, extract of corresponding sections of law of the requested country, declaration that
the case under investigation is not political, racial, military or religious character, translation, if required, to be
bound and paginated
RED NOTICE

 A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to

locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition,
surrender, or similar legal action.
 A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant
 Red Notices are issued for fugitives wanted either for
prosecution or to serve a sentence. A Red Notice is a request
to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally
arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal
action.
 NTERPOL cannot compel the law enforcement authorities in
any country to arrest someone who is the subject of a Red
Notice.
 Each member country decides what legal value it gives to a Red
Notice and the authority of their law enforcement officers to
make arrests.
“CAGED PARROT” TO “FREE THE CAGED PARROT”

 While hearing the Coalgate scam 2013, then Justice R M Lodha denounced the CBI as a "caged parrot" and "its
master's voice“ for what he said was clear evidence of interference by the government in a CBI inquiry into
alleged irregularities in the allocation of coalfield licenses to private companies.
 Recently, a Division Bench of Madras High Court while passing a slew of directions for strenghening the
functioning of the CBI, observed that the instant order 'is an attempt to release the Caged Parrot“ (CBI)
THE LEGITIMACY OF CBI CHALLENGED

 Navendra Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2013 CRI. L. J. 5009 Guahati High Court
 In this case the creation of CBI by an Executive Order of GoI was challenged besides the constitutional validity of
creating an investigative agency contrary to the provisions of Schedule Seven which stipulates police as a state subject
 The Court ruled;
 If a statute gives a specific name to an organization, created by the statute, it is not permissible to confer a new name on
the organization by any executive instructions. Subject to the validity of the DSPE Act, 1946, only Delhi Special Police
Establishment can be termed as statutory body created by the DSPE Act, 1946, and not the CBI.
 A reading of the Resolution would make it evident that it does not reflect the source of executive power. Since it is
found that the Resolution, which created the CBI, is not an act of delegated legislation, the Resolution cannot become a
part of the DSPE Act, 1946.
 GoI Notification on CBI 1964.pdf
THE LEGITIMACY OF CBI CHALLENGED

 It is fictitious to assume that the power to make such a body can be traced to Entry 8, List 1 of the Seventh
Schedule, which states “Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation”
 As stated by Dr. Ambedkar in Constituent Assembly, the word ‘investigation’ in Entry 8 would simply refer to a
“general inquiry to find out what was going on.”
 It is not similar to the kind of ‘investigation’ that is generally undertaken by a police officer, under Sec 2(h) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, thus, giving it a narrower scope of power.
 But the powers and functions that the CBI has been constituted under the Resolution, are in contravention of the
intent behind which this particular entry was mentioned in the Constitution.
 Moreover, the Resolution has neither been presented nor has it ever received the assent of the President of India.
Therefore, the basis for the formation of the said body is ultra vires of the Constitution.
 The Supreme Court has stayed the Guahati High Court order for a decade now without any hearing
 SINGLE DIRECTIVE; THE LEGAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE
SUPREME COURT
AND THE GOVERNMENT

 What is single directive?

 It is a set of instructions that are issued to the CBI by Ministries and departments for acquiring sanctions for initiating an
inquiry or registering a case against any public servant.
 The main objective for issuing a single directive is to protect civil servants from the threat or ignominy of malicious and
vexatious investigation
 The court held that the Single Directive cannot be termed as valid as it classifies offenders differently on the basis of
their post and status for the purpose of investigation and prosecution. Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As per
the law, all the offenders of the same offence are to be dealt with in the same manner irrespective of the position they
hold. (Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226)
 The government brought an amendment to DSPE Act in 2003 and introduced a similar legal provision under Sec 6A
 The Supreme Court declared Sec 6A unconstitutional as it is violative of Art 14 (Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs
Director, CBI & Anr AIR 2014 SC 2140)
 The government amended Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in 2018 requiring prior approval in initiating
inquiry, enquiry or investigation against public servant if relatable to any decision taken in discharge of official functions
or duties.
 Delhi Special Police Esst Act 1946.pdf Section 17 A of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.pdf
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

 Central Vigilance Commission is the apex vigilance institution, free of control from any executive authority,
monitoring all vigilance activity under the Central Government and advising various authorities in Central
Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance work.
 The CVC was set up by the Government in February, 1964 on the recommendations of the Committee on
Prevention of Corruption, headed by Shri K. Santhanam. In 2003, the Parliament enacted CVC Act conferring
statutory status on the CVC.
 The Supreme Court in the judgement of Vineet Narain & Others vs. Union of India (1997), gave directions
regarding the independent functioning of the CBI and directed that CVC should be given a supervisory role over
CBI.
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

 The Commission was given statutory status by the enactment of “The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003”.
 After enactment of CVC Act, 2003, the Commission became a multi-member body consisting of a Central
Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson) and not more than two Vigilance Commissioners (Members), to be
appointed by the President
 In 2013, the Parliament enacted the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. This act has amended CVC Act, 2003
whereby the Commission has been empowered to conduct preliminary inquiry and further investigation into
complaints referred by the Lokpal.
 Further, under Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, the Central Vigilance Commission has been recognised
as the agency to receive and act on complaints or disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office
from whistle blowers
ADMINISTRATIVE SET UP

 It is a multi-member Commission consisting of a Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson) and not more than two
Vigilance Commissioners (Member).
 The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the President on the
recommendations of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Minister of Home Affairs
(Member) and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People (Member).
 The term of office of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners is four years from the date
on which they enter their office.
 Chief Technical Examiners' Organisation (CTEO); Technical audit of construction works of Governmental organisations
from vigilance angle
 Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDIs); The CDIs function as Inquiry Officers to conduct Oral inquiries in
departmental proceeding initiated against public servants
 Integrity Index Development (IID); IID reflects the transparent, accountable and efficient governance of public
organisations
 Independent External Monitors for PSUs : Process integrity of procurements
ROLE OF CVO

 Chief Vigilance Officers (CVO)

 Internal vigilance administration in Departments/Organisations is headed by the Chief Vigilance Officers (CVO)
and the Commission’s activities concerning inquiry or causing inquiry are supported by/carried out through the
CVOs.
 Complaints received in the Commission are scrutinised thoroughly and wherever specific and verifiable
allegations of vigilance nature are noticed, the complaints are forwarded to the CVO/CBI to conduct
inquiry/investigation into the matter and report to the Commission expeditiously.
 CVOs in all Departments/organisations are appointed after prior consultation with the Commission.
STATUTORY FUNCTIONS

 The CVC exercises superintendence over CBI in relation to the investigation of offences under the PC Act. The CVC
also gives directions to CBI in the discharge of its functions under Section 4(1) of the DSPE Act.
 Inquire on a reference made to it by the Central Government (DoPT) about an alleged offence committed by a public
servant under the PC Act . The CVC inquires into any complaint against a public servant alleged to have committed an
offence under the PC Act
 Review the progress of the investigation by the CBI for offences under the PC Act
 Tender advice to the Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it
 Exercise limited superintendence over vigilance administration of various Ministries of the Central Government
 After a preliminary inquiry relating to corruption of public servants belonging to Group C or Group D, if the CVC
comes to a prima facie opinion of violation of conduct rules relating to corruption under the PC Act, the CVC shall (a)
direct the CBI to investigate, or (b) initiate disciplinary proceedings; or (c) close these proceedings and proceed under
the Lokpal Act
 To review the progress of applications pending with competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the PC
Act.
LEADING CASES

 Ashok Agarwal vs Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), 2017

 The case dealt with the question of the authority of the CVC to inquire into allegations of corruption against
senior government officials.
 Ashok Agarwal, a senior government official, was accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known
sources of income.
 The CVC initiated an inquiry into the allegations and ordered the CBI to conduct a preliminary investigation. This
was challenged on the grounds that the CVC did not have the authority to order such an inquiry
 The Supreme Court observed that the CVC was a statutory body empowered to exercise vigilance oversight
over government officials - CVC had the power to inquire into allegations of corruption against senior
government officials (including those relating to disproportionate assets) - however, CVC could not, by itself,
initiate a criminal investigation into corruption allegations - such an investigation could only be conducted by the
CBI or other competent authorities
LEADING CASES

 Vijay Rajmohan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai 2022
 Whether the order of sanction is illegal due to non-application of mind and acting as per dictation if the
appointing authority, the DoPT refers and considers the opinion and advise of the CVC?
 Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed for the delay in the issuance of the sanction order?
 Held: Section 8 of the CVC Act evidences the interplay of powers and duties of the three agencies, being the
sanctioning authority (Union Government), the prosecuting agency (the CBI), and the advisory body (the CVC),
all subserving the same public interest of ensuring integrity in governance.
 The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal
proceeding for that very reason.
 The competent authority shall be accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative
action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act.
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

 S 36. FEMA Directorate of Enforcement.—(1) The Central Government shall establish a Directorate of
Enforcement with a Director and such other officers or class of officers as it thinks fit, who shall be called officers
of Enforcement, for the purposes of this Act
 The Directorate General of Economic Enforcement was established on 1st May 1956 and has its headquarters in
New Delhi along with other regional offices all over the country.
 Its responsibility includes enforcing economic laws and regulating economic crime in India.
 It was formed for handling violations of Exchange Control Law under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947..
 While it was initially established under the control of the Department of Economic Affairs in 1956, it now forms
part of the Department of Revenue and is under its administrative control since 1960 for operational purposes.
 The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is a specialized body tasked with implementing three crucial financial laws:
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) of
1999 and also The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018
 Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), the
Directorate is empowered to sponsor cases of preventive detention with regard to contraventions of FEMA.
STATISTICS KEY DETAILS OF PMLA CASES UP TO 31.01.2023

S. NO DESCRIPTION TOTAL NO. / AMOUNT

1. Number of ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) recorded 5906
2. Number of Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs) issued 1919
3. Amount of PAOs issued (Rs. in crore) 115350
4. Number of PAOs confirmed by Adjudicating Authority 1632
5. Amount of PAOs confirmed by Adjudicating Authority (Rs. in crore) 71290
6. Number of persons arrested 513
7. Number of Prosecution Complaints filed 1142
8. Number of cases in which trial completed under PMLA 25
9. Number of trial cases resulted in conviction under PMLA 24
10. Total amount of confiscation (Rs. in crore) 15623
STATISTICS: KEY DETAILS OF FEMA CASES UP TO 31.01.2023

Sl No Description Total No/Amount

1. No. of Investigations Initiated 33988

2. No of Investigation Disposed 16148

3. Show-cause Notices (SCN) Issued 8440

4. No of SCN Adjudicated 6847

STATISTICS: KEY DETAILS OF FEOA CASES UP TO 31.01.2023

Sl No Description Total No/Amount

1. No of persons against whom action under FEOA initiated 15

2. No. of persons declared FEO 09

3. Amount of properties confiscated (Rs in crore) 862.43

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ED PROCEDURES CHALLENGED

 Vijay Madanlal Choudhury v. Union of India 2022 (three-judge bench)

 Arrest, search, seizure, attachment
 Inbuilt safeguards available. Adequate safeguards have been provides as are mentioned in CrPC
 Economic Case Information Report vis a vis FIR
 There is no need to formally register ECIR - ECIR is internal document - there is not requirement in law to furnish
copy of ECIR to accused - non-recording of ECIR does not prevent the authorities from proceeding with
inquiry/investigation for attachment - there is no investigation but inquiry akin to civil action of attachment - since the
inquiry ends in identifying the offender and then they are prosecuted
 Summoning Power & Recording of self-incriminating Statements
 ED officers are not police officers - statement recorded by them cannot be hit by Articles 20(3). provisions of CrPC and
Evidence Act does not apply to the inquiry carried out by the ED officers- however, once arrested the statement will be
hit under Sec 25 evidence Act
 ED Manual
 Is internal document and in the nature of administrative orders - common public may not be entitled to access such
confidential administrative instructions for internal guidance of ED SC Decision on CBI Manual.pdf
THE COURT COURTING CONTROVERSIES ?

 The perception of political bias in ED's actions is getting heightened.

 As per a study, there is a four-fold jump in the cases registered by the ED since 2014 and 95% of them are against
the opposition parties.
 As per some reports, the conviction rate in ED cases is very dismal - with 23 out of 5422 cases since 2005 (as on
July 2022), which is a low figure of 0.5%.
 In 2023, 14 opposition parties jointly filed a petition contending that the ED was being misused by the Central
Government.
 The SC refused to entertain the petition saying that politicians cannot claim a higher immunity and a general
direction can't be passed. The concerns about the independence of ED remained unaddressed.
 Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Anr. 2022 ( Tamilnadu cash for job scam) the two-judge bench while further
expanding the scope of money laundering, turned down a plea to refer Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment, which
upheld ED powers, to a larger bench.
THE COURT COURTING CONTROVERSIES ?

 The key legal takeaways from the remarkably bold judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2023 (3 Oct,
2023)
 The ED should inform the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing. Mere oral reading out of the grounds will
not suffice.
 ED cannot arrest a person citing mere non-cooperation to the summons.
 If arrest is invalid, then the subsequent remand order will also fail; judicial order of remand can't validate an illegal
arrest.
 What was considered as a silver lining in dark cloud lost its shine in Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of
Enforcement 2023 ( 15 December, 2023)
 Held: its judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India which held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must
furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing does not apply retrospectively.
 The accused need not be informed of the grounds of the arrest in writing at the time of the arrest and they need
to be furnished within 24 hours, but the accused must be orally told about the grounds at the time of arrest.
THE LATEST DRAMA IN THE COURT ROOM

 Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P.(Crl.) No. 23/2024

 The legal controversy can be traced back to an interim directive issued by the division bench of Madras High
Court in response to a batch of pleas challenging the ED's summonses to District Collectors in Tamil Nadu.
 Tamil Nadu government contended that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act constituted a
self-contained code, suggesting that the central agency lacked investigative powers under this legislation. It was
also pointed out that the MMDR Act were not scheduled offences under the PMLA, in support of the state
government's argument that the ED had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing summonses.
 Matter being heard in SC
 ED asserted that rampant illegal mining in Tamil Nadu constituted offences under various sections of the Indian
Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act and are scheduled offences that fall within the its jurisdiction to
investigate
 Interim Order on 27 Feb 2024: Collectors to appear and respond to the summons- set aside the Madras High
Court order
EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF OFFICE OF DIR, CBI & ED;
CHALLENGED IN SC

 DR. JAYA THAKUR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 518
 Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India (1996) and Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others (2006) the
SC has consistently held that the tenure of the high-ranking officials like the Director of Enforcement, the Director of
CBI and the Director General of Police should be for a fixed period of two years in order to insulate such an officer
from extraneous pressures and enable him to work independently and freely.
 If permitted to continue beyond the tenure, it would lead to a tendency wherein incumbents/officers would succumb to
the pressure of the Government in power and act as per their desire so that they get further extensions.
 The FR (Fundamental Rules 1922) as well as the CVC Act has undergone an amendment. It is, therefore, submitted that,
by an amendment, the very basis on which the judgment (Common Cause 2021) was delivered has been taken away.
 SC held: the challenge to Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 as well as to the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2021 is rejected
 Upheld the amendments which allow the Centre to extend the term of the heads of ED and CBI up to 5 years.
 The scope of judicial review over legislation is very limited and that the appointments of these officers are made by a
high-level committee, the Court upheld these amendments, opining that there are sufficient safeguards. Extension can be
granted to high-level officials in the public interest and with reasons in writing.
LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

 The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 provided for the establishment of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for
States.
 These institutions are statutory bodies without any constitutional status.
 They perform the function of an "ombudsman” and inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public
functionaries and for related matters.
 Why do We need such Institutions?
 Most of the anti-corruption agencies are hardly independent. Even Supreme Court has called out CBI as a “caged
parrot” and “its master’s voice”.
 Many of these agencies are advisory bodies without any effective powers and their advice is rarely followed.
 There is also the problem of internal transparency and accountability. Moreover, there is not any separate and
effective mechanism to put checks on these agencies.
 Corruptions at high places continued unabetted, creating disillusionment among the people
THE BACKGROUND
 In India, the concept of constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the then Law Minister, Ashok Kumar Sen
in parliament in the early 1960s.
 The term Lokpal and Lokayukta were coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi (eminent jurist and Parliamentarian)
 In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the setting up of two independent
authorities- at the central and state level, to look into complaints against public functionaries, including MPs.
 In 1968, Lokpal bill was passed in Lok Sabha but lapsed with the dissolution of Lok Sabha and since then it has
lapsed in the Lok Sabha many times
 Till 2011 eight attempts were made to pass the Bill, but all met with failure
 In 2011, the government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by Pranab Mukherjee to suggest measures to
tackle corruption and examine the proposal of a Lokpal Bill.
 "India Against Corruption movement" led by Anna Hazare put pressure on the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
government at the Centre and resulted in the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013, in both the Houses
of Parliament.
 It received assent from President on 1st January 2014 and came into force on 16 January 2014.
STRUCTURE OF LOKPAL

 Lokpal is a multi-member body, that consists of one chairperson and a maximum of 8 members.
 Chairperson of the Lokpal should be either the former Chief Justice of India or the former Judge of Supreme
Court or an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and
expertise of minimum 25 years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance,
finance including insurance and banking, law and management.
 Out of the maximum eight members, half will be judicial members and minimum 50% of the Members will be
from SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minorities and women.
 The judicial member of the Lokpal either a former Judge of the Supreme Court or a former Chief Justice of a
High Court.
 The non-judicial member should be an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having
special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25 years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public
administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.
 The term of office for Lokpal Chairman and Members is 5 years or till the age of 70 years.
 The members are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee.
WHAT COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF LOKPAL ?

 The Lokpal has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of corruption against anyone who is or has been Prime
Minister, or a Minister in the Union government, or a Member of Parliament,
 Officials of the Union Government under Groups A, B, C and D.
 Also covered are chairpersons, members, officers and directors of any board, corporation, society, trust or
autonomous body either established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly funded by the Union or State
government.
 It also covers any society or trust or body that receives foreign contribution above ₹10 lakh
HOW COMPLAINTS ARE HANDLED ?

 A complaint under the Lokpal Act should be in the prescribed form and must pertain to an offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a public servant.
 There is no restriction on who can make such a complaint.
 When a complaint is received, the Lokpal may order a preliminary inquiry by its Inquiry Wing or any other agency
(CBI or CVC), or refer it for investigation by any agency, including the CBI, if there is a prima facie case.
 Before ordering of an investigation by an agency, the Lokpal shall call for an explanation from the public servant to
determine whether a prima facie case exists
 The Lokpal, with respect to Central government servants, shall refer the complaints to the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC). The CVC will send a report to the Lokpal regarding officials falling under Groups A and B;
and proceed as per the CVC Act against those in Groups C and D.
HANDLING OF INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL CASE

 After the investigation, the agency ordered to conduct the probe has to file its investigation report in the court of
appropriate jurisdiction, and a copy of the report has to be filed before the Lokpal.
 A Bench of at least three members will consider the report and may grant sanction to the Prosecution Wing to proceed
against the public servant based on the agency’s charge-sheet.
 It may also ask the competent authority to take departmental action or direct the closure of the report.
 Previously, the authority vested with the power to appoint or dismiss a public servant was the one to grant sanction
under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
 Now this power will be exercised by the Lokpal.
 The Lokpal is vested with the power of search and seizure and also powers under the Civil Procedure Code for the
purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry & investigation and power of attachment of assets
 The Lokpal has a prosecution wing to prosecute the cases during trial
TRANSFER OR SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC SERVANT

 Where the Lokpal is prima facie satisfied that the continuance of a public servant in his post while conducting the
preliminary inquiry is likely to affect such inquiry adversely;
 or such public servant is likely to destroy or in any way tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses,
 the Lokpal may recommend to the Central Government for transfer or suspension of such public servant from
the post held by him till such period as may be specified in the order.
COMPLAINTS DEALT BY THE LOKPAL 2020-21

 No of Allegation  Nature of Allegation

 1. Members of Parliament - 4  1. Wrong action or inaction by officials - 87
 2. Central Government Group A or Group B officials - 66  2. Criminal misappropriate on by a Public Servant - 26
 3. Chairperson, Member, Officer or Employee in any Body,  3. Extending undue benefit to other persons - 22
Board, Corporation, Authority, Company, Society, Trust etc. – 77
 4. State Government Officials and Officials of Public sector  4. Offences related to bribing a Public Servant - 17
undertakings – 50  5. Service matters - 22
 5. Complaints in the nature of requests, comments or  6. Public Servant enriching himself- 16
suggestions -19
 7. Complaints in the nature of requests, comments, or
 6. Others (which are not specifically covered under the above suggestions - 19
categories) – 17
 Total - 233
ESTABLISHMENT OF LOKAYUKTAS

 Before the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. 2013, several states in India passed the laws for creating the
Institution of Ombudsman called 'Lokayukta'. The first state which passed the law was Odisha in 1970.
 Later, different States viz. Maharashtra (1971), Rajasthan (1973), Madhya Pradesh (1975), Uttar Pradesh (1975),
Karnataka (1979), Andhra Pradesh (1983) and Himachal Pradesh etc. passed laws to create the institution of
Lokayukta and now almost all states in India passed legislations for creation of Lokayukta
 According to the provisions of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. 2013, every State shall establish a body to be known as
the Lokayukta for the State
 To be constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to
corruption against certain public functionaries, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of
this Act
 29 Lokayuktas are functioning in the States as on Mar, 2024. Each has its own Lokayukta Act.
STATE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU

 Every State has an Anti Corruption Bureau or Vigilance Directorate

 Entrusted with investigation of corruption cases
 Mostly follow their own operational manual
 But the procedures followed are in consonance with CrPC
 The ACB/Vigilance is manned by officers on deputation from State Police
 In addition, The ACB/Vigilance maintain its Technical Wings
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU (NCB)

 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 made an express provision for constituting a Central
Authority for the purpose of exercising the powers and functions of the Central Government under the Act.
 The Government of India constituted the NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU on the 17th of March, 1986 to
exercise the powers and functions of the Central Government for taking measures with respect to:
 Co-ordination of actions by various offices, State Governments and other authorities under the N.D.P.S. Act,
Customs Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act and any other law for the time being in force in connection with the
enforcement provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985.
 Implementation of the obligation in respect of counter measures against illicit traffic under the various
international conventions and protocols
 Assistance to concerned authorities in foreign countries and concerned international organisations to facilitate
coordination and universal action for prevention and suppression of illicit traffic in these drugs and substances
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

 The Narcotics Control Bureau is the apex coordinating agency. Headquarters at Delhi
 It also functions as an enforcement agency through its zones and sun-zones. Zones located at Ahmedabad,
Bangaluru, Chandigarh, Chennai, Delhi, Guwahati, Indore, Jammu, Jodhpur, Kolkata, Lucknow, Mumbai, and Patna
 Sub-zones located at Amritsar, Ajmer, Bhubaneswar, Dehradun, Goa, Hyderabad, Imphal, Madurai, Mandi, Mandsaur,
Ranchi and Cochin.
 The zones and sub-zones collect and analyse data related to seizures of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substance, study trends, modus operandi, collect and disseminate intelligence and work in close cooperation with
the Customs, State Police and other law enforcement agencies.
YEAR-WISE SEIZURE OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES
YEAR-WISE SEIZURE OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES
Thank you