NEW DELHI: Supreme Court, while dealing with an alleged effort to cover up an attempt to insulate the then PM from the multi-crore rupee coal scam in 2013, came out with the “caged parrot” comment for CBI for not taking an independent stand and speaking its “master’s voice”. The perception stuck and came back to haunt the premier investigating agency when Justice Ujjal Bhuyan used the expression to question the arrest of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal.
It was the then CJI, R M Lodha, who coined the term while hearing the coal scam case during UPA govt and pulled up the agency for working under the Centre’s influence.
Questioning CBI’s motive and timing in arresting Kejriwal immediately after he was granted bail in the ED case, Justice Bhuyan said, “When CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant for 22 long months, I fail to understand the great hurry and urgency on its part to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case.”
He further said, “CBI is the premier investigating agency of the country. It is in public interest that CBI must not only be above board but must also be seen to be so. Rule of law, which is a basic feature of our constitutional republic, mandates that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious. This court has time and again emphasised that fair investigation is a fundamental right of an accused person under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Investigation must not only be fair but must be seen to be so. Every effort must be made to remove any perception that investigation was not carried out fairly and that the arrest was made in a high-handed and biased manner.”
Justice Bhuyan added, “In a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, perception matters. Like Caesar’s wife, an investigating agency must be above board. Not so long ago, this court had castigated CBI, comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative that CBI dispel the notion of it being a caged parrot. Rather, the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot.” He also emphasised that power to arrest should be used by probe agencies sparingly and an accused could not be arrested for being evasive in his response to a query.
“The respondent is definitely wrong when it says that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he was not cooperating with the probe, therefore, he was rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. It cannot be the proposition that only when an accused answers the questions put to him by the investigation agency in the manner in which the investigating agency would like the accused to answer, would mean that the accused is cooperating with the investigation. Further, the respondent can’t justify arrest and continued detention citing evasive reply,” Justice Bhuyan said.
The judge said an accused has the right to remain silent and he cannot be compelled to make inculpatory statements against himself. “This court, while emphasising the need to sensitise police against high-handed arrest, deprecated the attitude to arrest first and then to proceed with the rest…While emphasising that police officers should not arrest the accused unnecessarily and that the magistrate should not authorise detention casually and mechanically… The exercise of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly. This court reiterated the role of the courts in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that investigations are not used as a tool of harassment,” he added.
It was the then CJI, R M Lodha, who coined the term while hearing the coal scam case during UPA govt and pulled up the agency for working under the Centre’s influence.
Questioning CBI’s motive and timing in arresting Kejriwal immediately after he was granted bail in the ED case, Justice Bhuyan said, “When CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant for 22 long months, I fail to understand the great hurry and urgency on its part to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case.”
He further said, “CBI is the premier investigating agency of the country. It is in public interest that CBI must not only be above board but must also be seen to be so. Rule of law, which is a basic feature of our constitutional republic, mandates that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious. This court has time and again emphasised that fair investigation is a fundamental right of an accused person under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Investigation must not only be fair but must be seen to be so. Every effort must be made to remove any perception that investigation was not carried out fairly and that the arrest was made in a high-handed and biased manner.”
Justice Bhuyan added, “In a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, perception matters. Like Caesar’s wife, an investigating agency must be above board. Not so long ago, this court had castigated CBI, comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative that CBI dispel the notion of it being a caged parrot. Rather, the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot.” He also emphasised that power to arrest should be used by probe agencies sparingly and an accused could not be arrested for being evasive in his response to a query.
“The respondent is definitely wrong when it says that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he was not cooperating with the probe, therefore, he was rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. It cannot be the proposition that only when an accused answers the questions put to him by the investigation agency in the manner in which the investigating agency would like the accused to answer, would mean that the accused is cooperating with the investigation. Further, the respondent can’t justify arrest and continued detention citing evasive reply,” Justice Bhuyan said.
The judge said an accused has the right to remain silent and he cannot be compelled to make inculpatory statements against himself. “This court, while emphasising the need to sensitise police against high-handed arrest, deprecated the attitude to arrest first and then to proceed with the rest…While emphasising that police officers should not arrest the accused unnecessarily and that the magistrate should not authorise detention casually and mechanically… The exercise of the power of arrest must be pursued sparingly. This court reiterated the role of the courts in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that investigations are not used as a tool of harassment,” he added.