Está en la página 1de 12




Legal and Research Methodology

and Misuses of power

ROLL NO.: 1824

I, AYUSH RAJ, student of Chanakya National Law University hereby declare

that the work reported in the B.B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) project report entitled:
submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic record of
my work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Vijayant Sinha. I have not
submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am
responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)


ROLL NO: 1824

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 2017-2018 (1ST)

SESSION: 2017-2022

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. Vijayant Sinha whose guidance helped
me a lot with structuring of my project. I take this opportunity to express
my deep sense of gratitude for his guidance and encouragement which
sustained my efforts on all stages of this project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped

me immensely with materials throughout the project and without whom I
couldnt have completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen
hands that helped me out at every stage of my project.



ROLL NO: 1824

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

SEMESTER: 2017-2018 (1ST)

SESSION: 2017-2022

1. Introduction
a. Aims and Objectives
b. Research Questions
c. Hypothesis
d. Review of Literature
2. Research Methodology
a. Sources of Data
b. Mode of Citation
c. Limitation
4. Conclusion and Suggestion
5. Bibliography


At an early stage of the World War-II, the Government of India realized 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 Deputy Inspector General 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 was concerned. 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. In 1943, to remove doubts about the legal powers of police officers working with
SPE, an Ordinance was promulgated by the Government of India, by which a Special Police
Force was constituted for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with
the departments of the Central Government, with powers to investigate such offences anywhere
in British India. Even after the end of the war, need for a Central Government Agency to
investigate cases of bribery and corruption was felt and, therefore, the Ordinance promulgated
in 1943, which had lapsed on 30th September, 1946 was replaced by Delhi Special Police
Establishment Ordinance of 1946. This was subsequently replaced by Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946. After the commencement of the Act, superintendence of SPE was
transferred to the Home Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all Departments
of the Government of India. The jurisdiction of SPE was extended to all the Union Territories
and could be extended to the States with the consent of the State Governments. The
Headquarters was shifted to Delhi and the organisation was put under the charge of Director,
Intelligence Bureau. However, in 1948 a post of Inspector General of Police, SPE was created
and the organisation was placed under his charge. In 1953, an Enforcement Wing was added
to the SPE to deal with offences under the Import and Export Control Act. With the passage of
time, more and more cases under various laws other than Prevention of Corruption Act and
violations of Import and Export Control Act also came to be entrusted to the SPE. In fact, by
1963 SPE was authorized 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.
A growing need was felt for a Central Police Agency at the disposal of the Central Government
which would investigate not only cases of bribery and corruption, but also violation of Central
fiscal laws, major frauds relating to Government of India departments, public joint stock
companies, passport frauds, crimes on the high seas, crimes on the Airlines and serious crimes
committed by organised gangs and professional criminals. Therefore, the Government of India
set up Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by a resolution dated 1st April, 1963. Excluding
three divisions, namely the Crime Records Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory and
Central Finger Print Bureau, Calcutta, which function under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the
Ministry of Personnel is responsible for the overall supervision of the work, formulation of
policy of the Government thereto and attending to the administrative matters relating to the
CBI. Budgetary provision for the expenses of the CBI is made in the budget of the Ministry of
Personnel. The Ministry also provides channel of communication in some matters 2 between
CBI and the State Governments for launching prosecution in CBI cases in which the State
Governments are the competent authority to give such consent, in the engagement of Special
Counsels in CBI cases, in filing appeals and revision petitions against the judgments of Lower
Courts of CBI cases and in getting the consent of the State Governments for extending the
jurisdiction and powers of the SPE under the DSPE Act, 1946 to investigate specific offences
under the various Central/State Acts. 1.6. By now, the CBI has evolved into a multi-faceted,
multi-disciplinary investigative agency, its role expanding from the corruption cases to other
cases viz. cyber crimes, terrorist crimes, wildlife crimes, narcotics, arms trafficking, arts and
antiquities cases, counterfeiting of currencies etc. At present CBI derives the power to
investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. As per section 2 of the Act,
DSPE has 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 Governments have accorded
consent under section 6 of the Act. The superintendence of Delhi Special Police Establishment
vests with the Central Government whereas for investigations of offences under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 the superintendence vests with the Central Vigilance Commission


The researchers prime aim is to present a detailed study of " ", through articles,
affirmations, decisions and suggestions.
The researcher aims to descriptively provide a critical overview of the topics arising.
The main goal of this research is to understand the legal position in India and its
International context.
And also to know about evolution of related laws with changing spectra of society.



The researcher will be relying on Doctrinal method of research to complete the project. These
involve various primary and secondary sources of literature and insights.


The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project.


1. International conventions.
2. Legislations in context of several nations.
3. Judgements related to the subject at hand.


1. Websites and Blogs.

2. Newspapers.
3. Magazines.


The researcher has followed Bluebook Citation [19th edition].


The researcher has territorial, monetary and time limitations in completing the project.

The researcher is going to limit the projects scope to the events and status quo of the time in
which the said events unfolded, which paved the way for the development of the topic

The CBI has recently been prominently in the news, receiving bouquets from some and brickbats
from others. The Indian society has been having some sort of a love-hate relationship with this
organisation. The CBI has often been criticised for its alleged failure to function impartially and
objectively as an agency of law, but simultaneously there has always been an ever-increasing
demand for investigation of complicated cases involving influential persons to be handed over to the
CBI. This happens despite the fact that the record of CBI in such cases has not been very laudable.

What does this contradiction in attitudes towards the CBI show? Despite the fact that the Police are
a state subject, the public do not have faith in their own police forces. The public want a police
organisation, which would not allow anyone to rise above the law of the land. They expect the CBI
to always do better investigations than their own police forces.

Two things are needed for quality investigations- skill and impartiality. Are the CBI better equipped
than the state police forces in respect of these two factors. Lets take the investigation skill first.
Some people feel that the CBI has achieved its eminence as a premier investigating agency in the
country by default. The CBI is great because the state police forces are poor. After all, the majority
of senior officers and a large number of other ranks and men in the CBI are on deputation from the
state police forces- the same forces that are considered inferior to the CBI.

There are, however, a few significant differences between the CBI and the state police forces. One,
the CBI is a specialised agency, doing only crime investigation work, while the state police have to
perform multifarious tasks. Two, the level at which crime investigation work is done and supervised
is higher in the CBI than what it is in state police forces. Three, the CBI does not have to interact
with the public as closely and frequently as the state police forces do. In any case, the organisation,
unlike the state police, is not required to confront the public in many adversarial roles, requiring use
of force.

What about the objectivity and impartiality of investigations? The CBI is definitely not very effective
when it comes to dealing with crimes committed by serving politicians belonging to the party in
power. There have been many cases where the CBI has shown either reluctance to take up cases
against ruling party politicians, or when forced to do so, adopted dilatory tactics. Judeo case is not
the first of its kind. In the Havala case, the Supreme Court pulled up the CBI for showing inertia to
investigate offences involving influential persons. The CBI is also alleged to have been involved in
cases instituted mainly to harass and intimidate political opponents. The way the CBI was
manipulated and misused during the Emergency is now a part of history. Even later on, its handling
of many cases, like Bofors, HDW Submarine, the Airbus 320, Czech Pistol, Nusli Wadia, S
Gurumurthy, St Kitts, Chandraswamy, Lalloo Bhai Pathak, JMM, Mumbai Port Trust etc did not win it
public confidence. The CBIs role in these cases was considered controversial, if not suspect.

The crooked politicians take advantage of the public perception that the CBI in its work is
occasionally influenced by political considerations. Even where action taken against them is
perfectly legitimate and is as per the law, they invariably pose as victims of political vendetta and
witch hunting.

The CBIs misfortune is that it is a police organisation. Like all police forces in the country, it has
been open and amenable to undesirable illegitimate influences from its political masters. The
Supreme Courts judgement in the Havala case has not provided it the type of insulation it required.
The handing of Judeo-Jogi cases by the CBI clearly proves this.

The Government of India has never wanted this organisation to become strong and effective. The
need to have an investigating agency at the Centre had been felt as early as in 1948, as seen in the
entry Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation included in the Union List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. The CBI was established only on 1.4.1963 and till date no law has been
enacted to govern its functioning. It is still being governed by an outdated Act of Second World War
vintage, called the Delhi Police Establishment Act, which was enacted in 1946 to regulate the
functioning of the Special Police Establishment. This Establishment, now merged in the CBI, was set
up in 1941 to investigate cases of bribery and corruption involving purchases and supplies during the
World War II.

From time to time, the central government has issued orders scuttling the powers of the CBI so that
it becomes a toothless tiger and highly dependent on the government even in conducting its
operations. During Rajiv Gandhis time, a Single Directive was issued by the government, prescribing
that no case against an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary and above would even be registered
without written permission from the head of the government. In the Havala case, the Supreme
Court struck down the Directive as illegal, but the Government of India has again brought it back by
including it in the Central Vigilance Commission Act of 2003, which was passed recently by the
Parliament. Earlier, it was only a set of executive instructions; now it has become a part of law.

If the CBI has to function as an impartial and effective organization, certain measures are essential.
One of these is to enact a law, which must define the status, functions and powers of the CBI, lay
down safeguards to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the organisation and not allow anyone
to enjoy impunity.






The researcher has consulted following sources to complete the rough proposal: