Dilip Cherian | At CBI, Stability Has Trumped Succession

It was not unexpected that Praveen Sood would spend another year as CBI director. In fact, the biggest surprise would be a sudden leadership change at a time when the agency is conducting several politically sensitive investigations.

Officially, the government justified the extension in the name of continuity and stability. But the real reasons are clearly more political and practical.

There was reportedly a sharp disagreement at the selection committee meeting of the next CBI chief, with Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi recording a note of dissent on the process itself. This suggested that no easy consensus could be reached on the succession issue. In Delhi, when consensus cannot be reached, extensions become the safest option.

With corruption investigations, financial fraud cases and politically charged investigations constantly on the agenda, the government does not seem to want to risk uncertainty at the top of the CBI. The new chef needs time to get used to it. Mr Sood, on the other hand, is seen as stable, predictable and unobtrusive.

The Karnataka-cadre IPS officer has largely stayed away from public controversy throughout his tenure. No dramatic headlines, no visible battles for dominance, no unnecessary noise. In Delhi’s babu ecosystem, this often counts as effective leadership.

Still, the extension revives an old debate. What is the point of a fixed mandate if governments can extend it every year?

The main purpose of fixed tenures for CBI Directors was to maintain institutional independence. But over time, extensions became a convenient way for governments to retain trusted officials. The Modi government is not alone in this; Previous regimes did the same.

Supporters of the move argue that continuity helps lengthy investigations. Critics see the repeated expansions as a sign of the executive branch’s increasing influence over institutions.

Either way, the government’s message is clear: with the political atmosphere sharpening and every major investigation turning into a public battle, now is not the time when it wants experiments at the CBI. For now, Praveen Sood remains the preferred option.

Bhopal’s bypass row raises more than dust

The Bhopal land dispute has raised a simple but disturbing question: How did so many senior babus buy land in an area that soon became the site of a Rs 3,200-crore ring road project?

Reports say that around 50 IAS and IPS officers purchased agricultural land near Bhopal months before the project was approved, leading to a sharp jump in property prices. Maybe it was all perfectly legal. Babus are allowed to buy properties after complying with disclosure rules. But legality is only part of the story. Public trust is also based on perception and the image is terrible.

The problem is not land ownership. This is access. Did some officials know where development was heading before others? This doubt now hangs over the entire episode.

Although coincidental, skepticism is inevitable when people within the system appear to be profiting from decisions made by the same system. Ordinary citizens have no access to policy whispers, planning debates or maps of future infrastructure. That’s what makes this different.

Such situations undermine management’s image and reinforce the growing belief that insiders always have first-mover advantage.

This irony is particularly stark in a country where farmers routinely battle governments over land acquisition and compensation. Public projects are sold as development tools, not as private investment opportunities for those closest to power. Governments cannot afford even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

After 18 years, responsibility has finally arrived

The dismissal of IAS officer Padma Jaiswal may seem like a victory in terms of accountability, but the bigger story is why it took nearly 18 years for it to happen.

The allegations against Jaiswal date back to 2007-08, when he served as deputy commissioner of Arunachal Pradesh’s West Kameng district. Investigators later accused him of misusing public funds and abusing his official position. But over the years the case dragged on through investigations, trials, departmental investigations and legal challenges, and he continued to hold important positions.

Yet it is deliberately difficult to dismiss an IAS officer. Civil service protections are in place to prevent political vendettas and arbitrary punishments. No civil servant should fear being dismissed when governments change, but somewhere along the way the legal process turned into an endless process.

Governments tend to tread cautiously in cases involving senior officials because no one wants a disciplinary action to be overturned later in court. Time passes silently. Often, transferring an officer becomes easier than making the final decision. Babus generally seems to be better at containing the argument rather than directly confronting it.

What seems to have changed now is the Centre’s tougher public stance on corruption and malfeasance in senior services. The CBI charges seem to have finally brought the case to an end. But observers wonder: If the accusations are serious enough to warrant dismissal in 2026, why did the system need nearly two decades to make a decision?