The Supreme Court's monitoring of the CBI and hold its feet to the fire has resulted in some high-profile arrests. After acknowledging that in the face of abject state failure the courts do not have many options, Pratap Bhanu Mehta asks some relevant questions in the Indian Express:
In a context where, by its own accounts, the CBI cannot be trusted, does court monitoring help or exacerbate the problem? It helps in so far as it compels the CBI to produce something to satiate the court. The court can also monitor meticulously whether there are any double standards in chargesheeting — an area of considerable public concern. But how can the court possibly “monitor” the full range of evidence? This is purely institutional challenge, not a question of motives. The risk is this: precisely because of court monitoring, the imprimatur of legitimacy can be given to an investigation that is not full, complete or fair...
The court has been using an SIT in cases related to Gujarat. While the SIT has raised enough questions about Narendra Modi’s political responsibility, it seems to have fallen short of making a legally prosecutable case. So the court then appoints a distinguished amicus curiae to assess its own SIT. The issue here is not guilt or innocence. But the process is instructive: we create an institution to bypass an untrustworthy process, and then that institution itself requires yet another layer of assessment...
The courts run the risk of perpetuating the myth that because the executive has failed the judiciary can do better. Alas, there are no extra-political quick-fixes for executive failure.
The questions raised are very relevant, but are there any easy answers other than complete autonomy for the CBI? But what about now, the current cases and the short run? What must the courts do?
Read the full column at the Indian Express: A Delicate Balance