Is CBI still a ‘caged parrot’?

In the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case the Supreme Court had ordered the externment of Amit Shah, then minister of state for home in the Gujarat government led by Narendra Modi. The balance of facts perhaps suggested to the top court that an influential figure such as Mr Shah, who was deemed a confidant of the chief minister, was in a position to influence the course of investigation.

Given this background, many are likely to be sceptical of the CBI’s performance in investigating the matter which has led to Mr Shah’s discharge from the case by a CBI court. The CBI seemed all gung ho when the UPA was in office. And now, with the BJP in the saddle — and Mr Shah being seen as the second most important leader of the ruling establishment after Prime Minister Modi — it may seem to many that the case has been turned on its head.

This doesn’t say much for the conduct of the country’s premier investigating agency in matters involving high-profile politicians, although there is no shortage of capable officers. Steps have been taken lately to give autonomy to the CBI by giving its director a fixed tenure, and not leave the selection of the organisation’s top honcho to the whims of the government. Nevertheless, it now seems evident that these may not automatically be enough to insulate the agency from the pulls and pressures a government may be able to exert on its leadership to influence investigations.

The judge presiding over the CBI court which discharged Mr Shah in the highly controversial case has suggested that the facts gathered by the agency were not such that Mr Shah should be regarded as an accused. This is a telling comment on an investigation that has gone on for years. It is this that leads to suspicion that the CBI remains “a caged parrot.”

If it has deliberately weakened the case, the CBI is unlikely to show sturdiness of spirit and appeal in the high court against the order of the trial court. But the brother of the man who was killed in the fake encounter has said he would be doing just that. Thus, the family’s search for justice may not yet be over. But they will have to contend with the fact that the appellate court will be studying the same evidence that was presented at the trial stage. While this case has turned out to be of inordinate interest, it is the institution of the CBI that seems badly in need of repair.