Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: To ensure the impartiality of central investigative agencies in India, the Supreme Court has proposed creating an independent mechanism to review cases and eliminate perceptions of political vendetta. Despite the suggestion to bolster legal scrutiny, it faces challenges in addressing covert politically driven offenses. It results in disputes between state and central agencies due to concerns of selective prosecution.
ISSUES:
- Perception of political vendetta: There is a widespread perception that central investigative agencies like CBI, ED, and the Income Tax Department are being used to target and harass political opponents of the ruling party at the Centre. This undermines the credibility of the agencies and violates principles of justice.
- Discretionary Powers Limitation: Judicial actions are constrained by the broad discretionary powers of investigation agencies, which inherently limit the depth of judicial review. Agencies like the ED wield expansive powers to arrest and prosecute, which can be misused against the political opposition. Obtaining bail in such cases is also difficult.
- Selective investigations: There is criticism that while corruption allegations against opposition leaders are swiftly investigated, similar allegations against members of the ruling party or its allies are ignored. This double standard reinforces the view that the agencies are not acting independently.
- Retaliatory actions: There are instances of state police registering questionable FIRs against central officials as retaliation when central agencies target state ministers or officials. This leads to further erosion of institutional credibility.
- Judicial Oversight: The courts can intervene in cases of evident vindictive action; however, their scope is sometimes limited by the inability to verify the political motives behind suppressed cases.
- Court interventions: While courts can intervene when there is evidence of vindictiveness, agencies have wide discretionary powers in determining who to investigate. Courts are also limited in examining cases that are suppressed for political reasons.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Establishing an Independent Oversight Committee: Create an impartial body comprising members from varied backgrounds, such as the judiciary, civil society, and other stakeholders, to oversee the operations of investigative agencies. This would ensure checks and balances against misuse.
- Codifying Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): Formulate clear SOPs for the operation of agencies like CBI, ED, and the Income-Tax Department, which would include guidelines for investigations to be initiated, conducted, and internally reviewed to prevent selective targeting.
- Judiciary-Driven Monitoring Mechanism: Empower the judiciary with continuous oversight capabilities to monitor the actions of these agencies. Courts could mandate periodic reporting from the agencies, especially in politically sensitive cases.
- Whistleblower Protection: Strengthen whistleblower protection laws to encourage reporting actual malpractices within agencies without fear of retribution, ensuring higher internal scrutiny and transparency.
- Media and Civil Society Engagement: Encourage a proactive role for the media and civil society organizations in monitoring the functions of these agencies and holding them accountable while avoiding sensationalism.
- Legislative Scrutiny: Strengthen parliamentary oversight over the agencies through committees that can review the functioning and investigate any alleged misuse.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court’s call for an impartial mechanism to oversee case referrals and investigations of central agencies is a constructive step towards upholding the rule of law and ensuring political neutrality. However, genuine reform requires broader systemic changes beyond mere oversight, encompassing legal, procedural, and institutional amendments. Only through unwavering commitment to independence over allegiance will the sanctity of democratic institutions and the public trust in governance be preserved.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1) The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India. (2021)
Q.2) Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy. (2014)
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Discuss the challenges posed by the perceived misuse of central investigative agencies in the political arena in India. Critically examine the measures suggested by the Supreme Court to ensure their independence and suggest comprehensive solutions to enhance their accountability and impartiality.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word