ANIL KUMAR MISHRA
[email protected]
PANJIM: The Central Bureau of Investigation’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) unit in Goa operates with a clear mandate – to probe corruption in Central government departments and public sector undertakings (PSUs). Yet, its effectiveness in the State remains shaped as much by structural limitations as by the flow of public complaints.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
At the heart of the challenge is jurisdiction. The agency’s remit does not extend to the State government’s day-to-day functioning, significantly narrowing the scope of cases it can directly pursue. “Law and order is a State subject,” said T Sridharan Additional Superintendent of Police and Head of Branch, CBI Goa, underscoring that offences such as bodily crimes must first be registered by the State police before any potential CBI intervention.
Even within its designated domain, the volume of actionable inputs appears modest. “Complaints do come, but there is scope for more,” Sridharan said, acknowledging a gap that points to either underreporting or limited public awareness. He cautioned against drawing direct comparisons with larger States, noting, “Goa is a small State,” where the scale of administration and number of institutions are inherently lower.
However, the reliance on complaints and tip-offs also exposes a key vulnerability. The agency’s ability to act hinges on the quality of information it receives. “Information is important it can even be a tip-off,” Sridharan said, adding that the CBI can proceed only on inputs that are ‘verifiable’ and ‘actionable. While a whistleblower protection mechanism exists, its effectiveness often depends on public confidence something that cannot be assumed. The agency’s role is further shaped by external triggers. Apart from corruption cases within its core jurisdiction, the CBI steps in when directed by constitutional courts. “We take up cases on orders of the High Court or Supreme Court,” Sridharan said, indicating that some of its most significant interventions may originate outside its own investigative pipeline.
Taken together, these factors point to an operational model that is reactive rather than proactive – dependent on complaints, constrained by jurisdiction, and occasionally activated by judicial direction.
For the CBI’s anti-corruption efforts in Goa to gain sharper traction, systemic improvements are critical. Greater public awareness on what falls within its jurisdiction could help channel more relevant complaints. Strengthening co-ordination with State police would reduce procedural lag in cases requiring transfer. Equally important is building trust around whistleblower protection to encourage cred-ible disclosures. Without these shifts, the agency risks remaining a limited but underutilised instrument in Goa’s broader anti-corruption framework equipped with authority, but reliant on conditions it does not fully control.
