Special Judge Jitendra Singh punched so many holes in CBI’s Delhi excise policy case on Friday that it ended up looking like a sieve. To an agency that SC described as “caged parrot” in 2013, Singh’s remarks about a “premeditated and choreographed” probe may not matter much, but they should. Not because we say so, but because “in-depth investigation and successful prosecution” are part of its own mission statement. Yet, as the judge said, CBI built the Delhi excise case with “no material at all”, “conjecture”, “conscious and calculated stratagem”, plus deeply problematic procedures. Most embarrassing is the court’s recommendation of departmental inquiry against this case’s investigators.

CBI disagrees, of course, and will appeal, and we may not have a “final” verdict for years. The 2G spectrum case from 2009 is still at the high court stage. But that’s not the point. No society is above conspiracies, corruption and crime – look at America’s Epstein storm. But then, Florida’s Palm Beach police did a great job of investigating that case and collecting solid evidence. Yes, there was a huge cover-up later, but the investigation was unimpeachable. That’s how lurid details of the high and mighty keep tumbling out. It’s thanks to good sleuthing that US prosecutors achieve their high conviction rates – as high as 93% some years.

In India, cases tumble. Hardly one in five rape accused ends up behind bars; in murder cases the average is two in five. Why? Because evidence is weak. Last Dec, a drug runner was acquitted in Jharkhand because cops couldn’t produce any evidence – rats had “consumed” 200kg of marijuana. This is where CBI can have a corrective influence, by setting high standards of investigation. Beyond CBI, the Delhi excise case is a lesson for prosecutors too. When evidence is flimsy, they should push back, instead of acting like the probe agency’s assistant.

END OF ARTICLE