11 years later, SC revives‘caged parrot’ tag for CBI

In a striking rebuke to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Friday revived the controversial metaphor “caged parrot” for the federal agency, highlighting concerns about the CBI’s integrity and operational motives.
The term, first coined by the Supreme Court in the context of the coal block allocation scam during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime in 2013, was used to describe the CBI’s perceived lack of independence and its manipulation under political influence. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on Friday came in the context of the CBI’s decision to arrest Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case, noting that the agency’s actions were not about the pursuit of justice but rather about circumventing the bail granted to Kejriwal in a connected case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“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 the 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,” said justice Bhuyan in a judgment separately authored by him. He shared the bench with justice Surya Kant.
The judge’s critique of CBI’s actions not only reignites a critical discussion on the independence and integrity of the agency but also underscores the ongoing debate about the autonomy of central agencies and the importance of maintaining public trust in their operations. The ruling came at a time when Opposition parties have routinely complained that investigative processes involving CBI and ED are marred by political and procedural biases.
Accusing the Centre of misusing government agencies, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha said,“In the last 10 years, a culture has been developed to target political opponents using ED, CBI, I-T using fake, fictitious cases. You (Centre) have made these agencies a tool for getting your political equations right,” said Jha.
Left party CPI(M) too criticised the alleged use of central agencies to target Opposition leaders. “We welcome the Supreme Court order to grant bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Yet again, politically motivated attacks on opposition leaders by the Modi govt using central agencies have been exposed,” it said.
On the “caged parrot” remark, the BJP said that the agency was only so during the UPA regime. “Now, CBI is an eagle that is biting corrupt people and that is why it is irking everyone,” said BJP leader Gaurav Bhatia.
In his judgment, justice Bhuyan expressed concerns over the timing and apparent motives behind CBI’s arrest of Kejriwal. He pointed out that Kejriwal was arrested by CBI on June 26, 2024, only after a special judge granted him regular bail in a separate case involving ED. Justice Bhuyan highlighted that CBI had not deemed it necessary to arrest Kejriwal for over 22 months following the registration of the case on August 17, 2022. This delay, followed by the sudden arrest after ED’s bail decision, raised serious questions about CBI’s motives.
“When the CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant for 22 long months, I fail to understand the great hurry and urgency on the part of the CBI to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case… timing of the arrest of the appellant by the CBI is quite suspect,” justice Bhuyan held.
Suggesting that the arrest might have been strategically timed to circumvent the bail granted by the ED, the judge remarked: “The timing of the arrest by CBI raises more questions than it seeks to answer.” This timing, according to justice Bhuyan, indicated a possible misuse of investigative power to undermine judicial decisions made in related cases.
The judge underscored the importance of perception in a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, emphasising that an investigating agency must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair.
“CBI is a premier investigating agency of the country. It is in public interest that CBI must not only be above board but must also be seem to be so. Rule of law, which is a basic feature of our constitutional republic, mandates that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious,” he added.
Justice Bhuyan recalled that the Supreme Court has time and again underscored that fair investigation is a fundamental right of an accused person under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Investigation must not only be fair but must seem 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,” held justice Bhuyan.
Justice Bhuyan also scrutinised the grounds for Kejriwal’s arrest as he questioned the necessity of the arrest, noting that CBI had not previously deemed Kejriwal’s detention necessary, despite his interrogation about a year prior. The arrest seemed to be linked to the judicial developments in the ED case, rather than new findings or a genuine need for detention in the CBI case, he noted.
The judgment also berated the CBI’s justification for the arrest, stating that the grounds cited, such as Kejriwal’s alleged evasiveness, were insufficient to warrant his detention. Justice Bhuyan highlighted that the principle of fair investigation, as mandated under Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, requires that no person be detained merely on the basis of their responses to investigative queries or perceived lack of cooperation.
Drawing on several key legal precedents to underscore the importance of fair and transparent investigations, the judge emphasised the need for investigative agencies to act judiciously and avoid unnecessary arrests to ensure arrest does not become a tool of harassment.
Monitoring the probe into the Coal blocks allocation scam case in May 2013, a bench led by justice RM Lodha had berated CBI for being a “caged parrot, speaking in its masters’ voice”, after it was brought to the court’s notice that the agency, then headed by Ranjit Sinha, altered its investigation report under the direction of then law minister Ashwani Kumar.
This criticism reflected a broader concern about the CBI’s autonomy and its susceptibility to political pressures, undermining public trust in its investigative processes. The top court had then asked the Union government to ensure independence of the agency by bringing in necessary amendments in the law while ordering that no minister or officials of the ministries concerned have access to the probe reports.
The revival of the “caged parrot” metaphor by justice Bhuyan reiterates the need for investigating agencies to act independently and transparently, devoid of external influence, experts said. By raising questions about the agency’s motives, timing and adherence to principles of fairness, the Supreme Court judge has highlighted that probe agencies must maintain the integrity of the judicial system and protect the rights of individuals, they added.