The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised serious concerns over what it described as a growing tendency to use investigative agencies for political battles.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, heading a Bench with Justice K Vinod Chandran, asked why the CBI was entering what appeared to be a politically motivated case involving alleged irregular recruitment in the Jharkhand Assembly.
The Bench dismissed the CBI’s application seeking permission to begin a preliminary inquiry, observing that the agency seemed to be entering political disputes without sufficient cause.
CJI Gavai remarked that the Court had repeatedly cautioned against such practices, stressing that investigative agencies must remain independent of political influence.
Arguments from the Jharkhand Assembly
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Jharkhand Assembly, argued that the case itself was politically driven.
He pointed out that the CBI intervened despite the Supreme Court earlier staying the High Court’s directive ordering an investigation.
Sibal added that the CBI ‘jumps in without reason’ whenever politically sensitive issues arise, complicating the judicial process.
He noted that the Assembly had challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s order directing a CBI probe into alleged irregular appointments.
The High Court’s decision had prompted the agency to initiate a preliminary investigation even though the Supreme Court’s stay was already in place.
Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju denied any political agenda behind the agency’s involvement.
However, Sibal countered that similar concerns had arisen in West Bengal, where High Court judges had expressed unease over the agency’s actions.
Background of the Appointment Dispute
The controversy began with a PIL filed in the Jharkhand High Court alleging illegal appointments in the State Assembly between 2005 and 2007.
The petitioner, Shiv Sharma, alleged that authorities violated rules to make hundreds of recruitments, prompting the formation of a commission led by Justice Vikramaditya Prasad to investigate the claims.
Although the commission submitted its findings to the Governor in 2018—nearly ten years after its constitution—no follow-up action occurred.
The Governor later directed the Assembly Speaker to act on the report.
Petitioners also accused successive Speakers, including Inder Singh Namdhari and Alamgir Alam, of making irregular appointments and granting improper promotions.
The petitioner warned that further delays could allow officials appointed through questionable means to retire without accountability.
With the Supreme Court rejecting the CBI’s plea for a preliminary inquiry, attention now shifts to the broader challenge against the High Court’s order.
The Court’s strong remarks have renewed focus on preventing the misuse of central agencies in politically sensitive matters, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding institutional independence.
Also Read: Ilyas Acquitted In Modinagar Blast: Court Slams Police For Relying On Inadmissible Confession
To read more such news, download Bharat Express news apps
