In a telling moment during the recent bail hearing of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court of India admonished the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), warning that it must dispel its image as a “caged parrot.” The phrase, originally coined by the court a decade ago, once again highlights a persistent problem in Indian governance: the blatant politicisation of supposedly impartial investigative agencies. From the CBI to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), these institutions designed to uphold the rule of law, increasingly appear compromised, their autonomy eroded by the very state they are meant to serve.
The question of whether the CBI, ED, and their ilk have always been vulnerable to political manipulation is not new. But under the Modi government, their role has gained renewed scrutiny. Are these agencies merely continuing a tradition of subservience to the central government, or are they now operating under a more brazen form of political control than in previous administrations?
The CBI traces its origins to the Special Police Establishment, created in 1941 to combat corruption in the procurement of war supplies during the British Raj. After Independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru institutionalised the CBI in 1963 as a premier investigative agency, charged with investigating corruption in central government offices. Over time, its remit expanded to include high-profile cases of criminality, economic offences and, increasingly, political scandals.
Despite the lofty ideals behind its creation, the CBI has always struggled to maintain its independence. Successive governments have used it as a tool to control dissent, intimidate political opponents and shield allies.
A particularly illustrative case occurred during Indira Gandhi’s tenure in the 1970s. During the infamous Emergency period (1975-77), the CBI was co-opted to suppress dissent against the government, pursuing opposition leaders with zeal while ignoring corruption within the ruling party. The agency’s neutrality was further questioned in the aftermath of the Emergency, when investigations against Gandhi herself were conveniently stifled after her return to power in 1980.
The tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi saw the Bofors scandal, in which the CBI was slow to investigate despite mounting evidence of corruption. Subsequent governments, including those led by the Janata Dal and United Front, also dabbled in using the CBI to settle scores.
The term “caged parrot” gained currency in 2013 during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Supreme Court’s scathing remark came in the context of the investigation into the 2G spectrum scandal, one of the most significant cases of corporate and political malfeasance in Indian history.
Since Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept to power in 2014, the charge that investigative agencies are being misused has only intensified. Under the current regime, high-profile raids, arrests, and charges against opposition leaders have become almost routine.
Critics argue that these investigations are aimed at hobbling the opposition, a strategy employed not just to weaken rivals but to create an atmosphere of fear. The message is clear: dissent will be met with legal reprisal. Supporters of the Modi government argue that the agencies are simply doing their job. But the optics of such investigations, particularly when they disproportionately target those opposed to the government, are hard to ignore.
The Enforcement Directorate, too, has seen its powers vastly expanded under the Modi government. According to data from the Lok Sabha, the ED has registered over 1,700 cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act since 2014, a 500% increase from the previous UPA era.
While it is tempting to lay the blame entirely at the door of the Modi government, the truth is more nuanced. The politicization of the CBI and other probe agencies has long been a feature of Indian governance. The Congress party, which ruled India for much of its post-independence history, also wielded these tools of power.
The question now is whether the CBI and ED can ever return to their intended role as impartial enforcers of the law. The Supreme Court’s remarks offer a glimmer of hope, but words alone will not suffice. Institutional reforms are urgently needed. The independence of these agencies must be protected through greater accountability mechanisms, such as a more autonomous selection process for key officials, reducing the direct influence of the government of the day.
One solution could be to place the CBI under the direct oversight of a parliamentary committee, rather than the central government, ensuring that no single political entity can dictate its actions. Similarly, limiting the powers of the government to approve or withhold permission for investigations, especially in cases involving government officials or politicians, would help mitigate accusations of bias.
India’s democracy cannot thrive if its investigative agencies are seen as compromised. The parrot, as the Supreme Court suggested, must be freed—before the song it sings becomes irredeemably one-sided.
Comments