By Dilip Cherian
Another year for Praveen Sood as CBI Director was hardly unexpected. In fact, the bigger surprise would have been a sudden leadership change at a time when the agency is handling several politically sensitive investigations.
Also Read
Officially, the government has justified the extension in the name of continuity and stability. But the real reasons are clearly more political and practical.
The selection committee meeting for the next CBI chief reportedly saw sharp disagreement, with Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi recording a dissent note over the process itself. That suggested there was no easy consensus on a successor. And in Delhi, when consensus is missing, extensions become the safest option.
The government also appears unwilling to risk uncertainty at the top of the CBI, when corruption probes, financial fraud cases, and politically charged investigations are constantly in the spotlight. A new chief would require time to settle in. Sood, on the other hand, is seen as steady, predictable and low-profile.
The Karnataka-cadre IPS officer has largely stayed away from public controversy during his tenure. No dramatic headlines, no visible turf wars, no unnecessary noise. In Delhi’s babu ecosystem, that often counts as effective leadership.
Still, the extension revives an old debate. What is the point of a fixed tenure if governments can keep extending it year after year?
The original purpose of fixed terms for CBI Directors was to protect institutional independence. But over time, extensions have become a convenient way for governments to retain trusted officers. The Modi government is not alone in this; previous regimes did the same.
Supporters of the move argue that continuity helps in long-running investigations. Critics see repeated extensions as a sign of growing executive influence over institutions.
Either way, the message from the government is fairly clear: with the political atmosphere getting sharper and every major probe turning into a public battle, this is not the moment it wants experimentation at the CBI. For now, Praveen Sood remains its preferred choice.
Bhopal’s bypass row raises more than dust
The Bhopal land controversy has raised a simple yet troubling question: how did so many senior babus end up buying land in an area that soon became the site of a Rs 3,200-crore bypass project?
Reports say around 50 IAS and IPS officers purchased agricultural land near Bhopal months before the project was cleared, triggering a sharp jump in property prices. Maybe everything was perfectly legal. Babus are allowed to buy property after following disclosure rules. But legality is only part of the story. Public trust runs on perception too, and the optics are terrible.
The issue is not land ownership. It is access. Did some officials know earlier than others where development was headed? That suspicion now hangs over the entire episode.
While it may have been a coincidence, when people inside the system appear to profit from decisions made by the same system, cynicism is inevitable. Ordinary citizens do not have access to policy whispers, planning discussions or future infrastructure maps. That is what makes this different.
Cases like this weaken the image of the administration and reinforce a growing belief that insiders always get the first-mover advantage.
The irony is especially sharp in a country where farmers routinely battle governments over land acquisition and compensation. Public projects are sold as instruments of development, not private investment opportunities for those closest to power. Governments cannot afford even the appearance of conflict of interest.
18 years later, accountability finally arrives
The removal of IAS officer Padma Jaiswal from service may look like a victory for accountability, but the bigger story is why it took nearly 18 years to happen.
The allegations against Jaiswal date back to 2007-08 during her tenure as deputy commissioner of West Kameng district in Arunachal Pradesh. Investigators later accused her of misusing public funds and abusing her official position. Yet through the years, the case drifted through inquiries, tribunals, departmental reviews and legal challenges while she continued holding important postings.
Still, dismissing an IAS officer is intentionally difficult. Civil service protections exist to prevent political vendetta and arbitrary punishment. No officer should fear removal every time governments change, but somewhere along the way, due process turned into an endless process.
Governments tend to move cautiously in cases involving senior officers because nobody wants disciplinary action overturned later in court. Time quietly passes. Often, transferring an officer becomes easier than making a final decision. Babus are often seen to be better at containing controversy than confronting it directly.
What seems to have changed now is the Centre’s tougher public stance on corruption and misconduct within senior services. The CBI chargesheet appears to have finally pushed the case to a close. But observers wonder: if the charges were serious enough for dismissal in 2026, why did the system need almost two decades to decide?
