New Delhi, July 16: The CBI today requested the Supreme Court to set aside a legal clause that makes a state’s consent necessary to probe any case outside the capital as it sought greater investigative and financial freedom to minimise extraneous influences.

In an affidavit, the agency also said its director should be appointed for at least three years, instead of two, with a rank equal to that of a secretary to the central government.

The affidavit, filed in connection with the coal allocation probe, opposed the government’s proposal to empower the Central Vigilance Commission to remove the CBI director for misconduct and set up an accountability commission to act against errant officers.

The submissions followed a July 3 court directive to respond to a government plan to set up a panel comprising the Prime Minister, leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India for appointing CBI directors and introduce measures to insulate the agency from interference.

The court, which is hearing two public interest petitions on alleged illegal allocation of coal blocks between 1993 and 2010, had earlier described the CBI as a “caged parrot” and vowed to liberate it from its political masters. It had asked the Centre to come up with suggestions for freeing the agency from such constraints.

The CBI’s plea to quash Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act assumes importance as the agency has been accused of being a tool in the Centre’s hand to harass states that don’t toe its line.

The DSPE Act governs the CBI’s functioning and Section 6 prohibits the agency from investigating any case outside Delhi without permission from the state concerned. However, the Supreme Court and high courts can direct the CBI to probe any case in any state.

In its affidavit, the CBI said only 10 states had “issued general consent with respect to cases” against central government officials and employees. “The remaining (states) have not granted such consent. In such states, (the) CBI has to seek requisite consent on a case-to-case basis. An exception is required to be made in Section 6 of the DSPE Act to obviate the need for the consent of state government(s) in matters pertaining to officials/employees of (the) central government and central public sector undertakings etc working in a state.”

The agency said under the existing arrangement, the administrative, disciplinary and financial powers of the director are limited, and suggested its chief should report “directly” to the minister for personnel and training, the department the CBI comes under.

“As such, it is necessary that the director, CBI, should be vested with ex-official powers of secretary of government of India reporting directly to the… minister without having to go through the DoPT (department of personnel and training). This will mean that the budget for the CBI may be separately put up through (the)… minister to the department of expenditure at the appropriate time.

“Under this proposed arrangement, (the) director… would be independent of the ministry as far (as) investigation is concerned and would continue to be accountable to the… minister for administrative and financial matters. It needs to be reiterated that financial and administrative powers are essential for the efficiency of the functioning of (the) CBI and for insulating it from (the) government in… day-to-day functioning.”

The affidavit said it was “undeniably necessary” for the CBI to have a director “who is free to take routine administrative and financial decisions” if the agency were to “discharge its core function without fear or favour”.

On the proposal to set up an accountability commission, the agency said it could compromise “discipline within the organisation” as disciplinary powers would “vest outside”, though indirectly. Such a provision would “disturb the chain of command within the organisation”, the agency added.

The CBI said the power to remove the director should be conferred on the panel headed by the Prime Minister, not the CVC.