No action was taken

The court also provided for a minimum two-year term for the CBI director CBI.



Precipitating the matter, the director filed an FIR against Mr Asthana and another officer Devender Kumar, for bribery and corruption. The matter was however, not referred to the committee.ConclusionHow the court and government proceed on the matter will certainly have great bearing on the future of the bureau. The court also provided for a minimum two-year term for the CBI director CBI, to ensure that he has security of tenure during service, in a bid to insulate him from pressure from the powers that be.On the legal side, an agency certainly cannot investigate its own officer in this manner.

No action was taken on the said report. The CVC failed to appreciate that while there was no process for appointment of interim director in the Act, the appointment must bear the review of the same process, which is approval bathroom waterproof panel Manufacturers from the joint committee. The restriction on the powers of the interim director are a clear action on the point that his appointment itself has not gone through the procedure laid down in law and thus his power to take substantial policy decisions is still suspect. The bad blood between the officers led to the Mr Asthana filing detailed complaints against the director with the CVC for interfering in probes and accepting bribes in several politically sensitive cases, in August 2018. This procedure, laid down in the CVC Act, is to avoid political appointees to this sensitive post. The report recommended better training, more manpower, greater powers of search and seizure, more insulation from political action, and more funding to enable better investigation.