Supreme Court has allowed CBI to continue its probe in the Lavanya suicide case but the track record of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) leaves a lot to be desired. Even in high-profile cases such as the murder of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput, it has still not been determined what really happened. Sree Iyer demands that CBI be allowed to do its job fairly and quickly without any interference from anyone.
Supreme Court judgment on why private entities such as the BCCI also can be audited or probed just like a public entity
Supreme Court judgment on why private entities such as the BCCI also can be audited or probed just like a p… by PGurus on Scribd
Latest posts by Sahil Mishra (see all)
- Xi Jinping treats Chinese people like Ganna (Sugarcane) – Squeeze them & throw them away! - April 9, 2024
- Tharoor Aadat se Majboor - April 7, 2024
- Don’t let Vijender Sleep! - April 6, 2024
This is a valid question.
SC asked CBI to present its success rate about a year back; not sure if CBI did, and not sure if SC followed up.
IMHO, the judiciary and the judicial system are far more responsible for poor conviction rates than even the investigation agencies (which are not above board, anyway).
Consider the facts that an accused has the right not to reveal truth if he thinks it could be self-incriminating, the onus is always on the investigators to prove their case without an iota of doubt, investigation process has no teeth because high profile criminals hire the best of lawyers, investigators’ hands and legs are most often tied through stringent guidelines, adjournments are offered on a platter just for the asking, even cases considered water-tight can be cracked if a small element of loophole is found for which the probability is very high (going by just the law of averages), political interference is rampant as state and central investigation agencies are not independent, under the ‘bail is the rule, jail is exception’ dictum, many influential, hardened politically influential criminals are repeatedly out in case after case, etc, not to speak of corruption in judiciary.
All these have led to a situation where organised looting can take place through politics, bureaucracy, industry and criminals, as there is no fear of punishment, and even in the rarest of rare cases of punishments, like Sasikala’s, they live 5 star lives even in jails, and even run their mafia rajs from there. When their physical presence is required outside, there is always the parole option, limits on parole notwithstanding.
Judiciary is an important pillar of democracy; democracy can work well only if judiciary is good, honest, efficient and effective. When it fails, when people have to choose, during elections, between the few top few parties all of which have corrupt, criminal leaders who have made their parties their family businesses, what kind of democracy can we expect?
Under these conditions, when tempted by the wealthy criminals with quid pro quo to weaken the cases, investigators could often take the baits offered by the criminals as they have little to gain and everything to loose by not accepting.
While technology has been advancing, there is practically no application of technology in the judicial process except for simple things like judgments being available in soft copy form also. There appears to be no honest intention or specific time-bound game plans on the part of judiciary to quickly clear the backlogs except for laughable ideas like fast track courts, which have huge backlogs as well.
I think the nation’s GDP will go up by several % points if merely judiciary alone were reformed.
Despite all these constraints, if democracy still works, even if very inefficiently and noisily, it is because of the amazingly fair level of maturity of the people, by and large.