Central Bureau of Investigation
Click here for Complaint / Information
RESTRUCTURING OF CBI
  1. CBI has evolved historically from 1941 with the establishment of Special Police in the War department. Its first branches were opened at Lahore, Ambala, Dehradun and Jabalpur. It was at these places that men and material were being collected for fighting the Second World War. The DSPE Act was promulgated in 1946. Then came the Independence in 1947 and the Constitution of India in 1950. The DSPE was restructured with the formation of CBI in 1963. Thereafter, with formation of NCRB and BPR&D certain functions of CBI were handed over to these organizations.

  2. In the 1980’s and 1990’s the General Offences Wing, Special Crimes, Economic offences, STF, BS&FC Wings were created. Then came the MDMA, Cyber Crimes, System Division, Command Centre etc. in the 21st century. During this period, new ranks in the structure of Police were added like the ASP, SSP, ADGP, Special DGP and DGP. Several structural changes took place with Vineet Narain judgment of the Supreme Court, CVC Act and formation of Directorate of Prosecution and Central Forensic Science Laboratory as separate entities.

  3. Now with the on going scientific and technological revolution, Internet, faster and newer modes of Transport and Communication new types of crime and cases are being investigated and prosecuted by the CBI. Therefore, there is an immediate need to restructure the CBI to meet the future challenges of the 21st century. Keeping in view the above requirement, a study was undertaken during 2006-08 by appointing a Consultant from IIT, Delhi at a cost of Rs. 21 lac. The Consultant has submitted his report. Some of the salient features of this report relating to the structure of CBI and views of Policy Division are as under:-

    1. Geographical gaps in the spread of CBI offices across the country need to be bridged to enhance the effectiveness of CBI. This would help the institution to play a more proactive and constructive role.

    2. It is felt that instead of just adding to more units in certain locations, a hierarchy be created which will show which is a representative office, which is a branch office, and which is a zonal office.

    3. Creating a hierarchy of work levels and matching it with an index of resources, which will be made available to each, would be a further step in the modernization process.

    4. A match between the spread of the central government institutions/ offices and location of CBI offices would help. The ratio between the CBI offices and the number of government departments and PSUs could be used as an indicator of the need to locate or expand a CBI office.

    5. Too many levels of supervision tend not only to be counter productive but a huge waste of time. However, authorizations are essential in some cases, say in deploying informants or covert human intelligence sources.

    6. Broad divisions in the investigation work are based on the type of offence under investigation and there is little institutional integration between the activities of the three investigation divisions. On the other hand, with the emergence of crime syndicates linkages between conventional crimes, economic crimes and corruption cannot be ignored. Integration of the activities of the three investigation divisions is theoretically possible at the highest level, i.e. at Director level. To respond quickly to the fast changing world, the structure should provide for information sharing and synergy between the three investigating divisions at a lower level.

    7. The present structure of investigation divisions is very rigid, highly formalised, strictly hierarchical, and tasks oriented as against role playing which inhibits innovations, initiatives and free flow of ideas. As a result many ranks especially at lower levels have developed the habit of working mechanically without much application of mind, often looking for precedents and repeating them. They do not display initiative, high energy level and motivation in achieving the larger objectives of the organisation and are happy in performing the routine tasks. Such structure is not suitable for a changing environment where dynamism, multitasking, innovation, ability to absorb new technologies and team work are of paramount importance to become effective.

    8. New roles created within the existing structure to accommodate certain ranks have resulted in overlapping responsibilities without much value addition resulting in more time in decision making. A large number of decision making levels diffuse responsibility and it is difficult to hold anyone accountable for poor decision making. Moreover, conflicts are created because of common turf between various ranks in the hierarchy.

    9. The specialised cells created to deal with specific offences such as cyber crimes, narcotics, smuggling of antiques, and wild life crimes and were made a part of Economic Offences Division have not been able to deliver expected results. New agencies in the form of Narcotics Control Bureau and Wildlife Crime have been created by the Central government which has reduced the relevance of specialised units of CBI dealing with such crimes. The second Administrative Reforms Commission has recommended for creation of a Serious Fraud Office consisting of experts drawn from diverse fields to deal with the emerging economic offences. This perhaps indicates the lack of faith among the policy makers in the effectiveness of CBI in dealing with the emerging economic offences, which has a separate division to deal with economic offences. Considering that present structure of the Economic Offences Division in CBI, discourages or gives no space to experts from other fields like taxation, customs, banking and insurance etc. who may have better inside knowledge and insight into such crimes, it limits the effectiveness of CBI in dealing with economic offences. There is, thus, an emergent need to restructure the Economic investigation Division.

    10. Often investigating officer needs expert help of forensic experts, chartered accountants, financial experts, contract experts, legal experts, engineers etc. during the course of investigation. CBI has a legal division and CFSL. Delhi is attached with CBI for administrative purposes. As experts are accountable to their functional heads, the Investigating Officer often finds it difficult to seek their help. For other kinds of expertise CBI has to look outside but due to elaborate procedures involved, the Investigating Officer endeavors to somehow manage the investigation without expert help. Not only important aspects of investigation are missed, the quality of investigation also suffers in the process. Thus, structure of the organisation needs to be suitably altered to facilitate co-opting experts in investigation.

    11. “To achieve this would be easier if a repositioning effort were undertaken for moving the brand image of CBI from being just an ‘investigative agency’ to a ‘proactive agency, working as a knowledge system, for a safer society”. An important initial step in this direction would be rationalization of work procedures in matters being and small. Illustratively the present situation of at lease five levels of consultation between the writing of the Case Diary to the ‘final decision’ by the competent authority needs to be reduced to a maximum of three.

    12. Indeed in certain cases the number of levels of screening touch a dozen. Illustratively in the Banking Fraud etc. wing in certain cases, the 12 levels of consultation go something like the following :

      IO --> PP --> SP --> AG RBI --> DLA --> DIG --> JD -->
      ALA --> GM RBI --> AD/SD --> DCBI --> Prosecution sanctioned by the competent authority

    13. It is obvious that, there are organizational spots; where there is an over kill at the level of consultation. The results can be hurtful to organizational efficiency. Even, if each level took a fortnight what one is in effect saying that the whole process can take at least six months. This is something which can not be considered, optimally, an endeavour to efficacious investigation and consummation of the processes.

    14. Work analysis established that these 12 levels could be reduced to at least to 6.


  4. Arnold Toynbee, the great historian, said that all of history can be written in a simple formula – challenge and response. The challenge is created by the environment. And then, the individual, the institution and society come up with a response. Then there is another challenge – another response. The formula is constantly being repeated. The problem arises when these responses become codified. They get set in cement. They become a part of the way we think and the way we perform. They may be good practices, good procedures. But when we are faced with a new challenge, the old practices no longer apply. They become obsolete”. Quote from Stephen Convey’s book – First things first.

  5. Therefore, to achieve the objectives of the organization and come up to the expectations of the people, the Government, CVC, Courts etc., there is need to do away with at least one level immediately. Let us consider, on an experimental basis doing away with the regional offices and have only the following three levels for quicker decision making and optimum utilization of available human resources :-

    1. Branches to be headed by ASP/SP/DIG

    2. Zones to be headed by IG/DIG

    3. Divisions to be headed by ADG/Special DG
(Ashwani Kumar)
Director, CBI


Go Back