The Government set up the N. N. Vohra Committee in July 1993 following the Mumbai bomb blasts in March of that year, “to take stock of all available information about the activities of the crime syndicates/mafia organisations which had developed links with, and were being protected by Government functionaries and political personalities”.

The objective of the exercise, according to the committee’s report, was “to determine the need, if any, to establish a special organisation/agency to regularly collect information and pursue cases against such elements”.

It is important to consider the fact that the report was drawn up nearly two decades ago, and even then it was clear that corruption had struck deep roots. Vohra had stated unambiguously that “the activities of Memon Brothers and Dawood Ibrahim had progressed over the years, leading to the establishment of a powerful network”.

Apex court’s concern

In fact, so seminal were the pronouncements of the Vohra Committee that the Supreme Court, in its December 18, 1997, judgment on Vineet Narain and Others versus Union of India, referred to the Vohra Committee report and said that that the document “discloses a powerful nexus between the bureaucracy and politicians with the mafia gangs, smugglers and the underworld”.

Among other things, the judgement said that the report “confirmed our worst suspicions focusing the need of improving the procedure for constitution and monitoring the functioning of intelligence agencies. There is, thus, no doubt that this exercise cannot be delayed further”.

But has there been any improvement in the situation, namely, that the “parallel government” — referred to by the Vohra Committee and repeated by the Supreme Court — has at least been weakened if not dismantled altogether?

Probing the ‘prominent’

Very recently, a former CBI chief, Uma Shankar Mishra, who headed the bureau from 2003 to 2005, went public with the allegation that when “prominent political leaders” were investigated during this time, there were “some influences to keep the progress report pending or present it in a certain way”.

He referred to the pressure exerted on him by “a Cabinet Minister” regarding the Telgi case, which made him seek a meeting with the Prime Minister.Clearly, on the face of it, corruption in the highest echelons of the Government still appears to be as prevalent today as in the early nineties, when the Vohra Committee report drew attention to the subject.

Related Topics