Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressing strong dissent over the functioning of the committee responsible for selecting the next Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. He alleged that the process had been reduced to a formality aimed at appointing a pre-decided candidate.
In a formal letter addressed to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, May 12, Rahul Gandhi criticised the “institutional capture” of the CBI and accused the Union government of repeatedly misusing the agency against political opponents, journalists and critics.
He stated that the inclusion of the Leader of the Opposition in the selection committee was meant to prevent such institutional capture, but alleged that the government had consistently denied him any meaningful role in the appointment process.
A key point raised in Rahul’s letter was the alleged withholding of crucial information related to the shortlisted candidates. He said that despite repeated written requests, he was not provided with the self-appraisal reports or “360-degree reports” of the officers being considered for the post.
According to Rahul, he was expected to examine appraisal records of 69 candidates for the first time during the committee meeting itself, making any meaningful evaluation impossible. He argued that denying access to the 360-degree assessments undermined the legal framework governing the selection process and rendered the exercise meaningless.
The Congress leader also referred to earlier objections raised by him regarding similar appointments. He noted that he had recorded dissent during a previous committee meeting held on May 5, 2025, and had subsequently written again on October 21, 2025, proposing measures to make the selection process fair and transparent. Rahul alleged that no response was ever received to those suggestions.
Stating that the government had effectively reduced the role of the Leader of the Opposition to that of a “rubber stamp”, Rahul said he could not abdicate his constitutional responsibility by participating in what he termed a biased and predetermined exercise.
He concluded the letter by recording his dissent “in the strongest possible terms”, accusing the government of compromising the integrity of institutional appointments through opaque procedures.