Special Court Raises Serious Questions About CBI's Investigation Methods in Delhi Excise Policy Case
In a significant development that could impact high-profile corruption investigations across India, a special court in New Delhi has raised fundamental questions about the Central Bureau of Investigation's reliance on statements from accused-turned-approvers in its case against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Court Questions Elevation of Approver Statements to "Unimpeachable Truth"
Special judge Jitendra Singh, presiding over the Delhi excise policy case, pointed out that the CBI's case against Kejriwal rests primarily on the statement of accused-turned-approver Magunta Reddy. The court questioned whether investigating agencies can "elevate" and treat such statements as "unimpeachable truth" without proper scrutiny and verification.
"This unexplained conduct reflects a disturbing departure from the settled legal principles governing the grant of pardon," the court observed after defense lawyers highlighted how the testimony of another approver, Dinesh Arora, was recorded multiple times before he was granted immunity from prosecution.
Multiple Statement Recordings Raise Concerns About Precedent
The court took particular issue with the CBI's practice of recording multiple statements from approver Dinesh Arora over an extended period. Judge Singh noted that this approach "carries the grave potential of setting an unhealthy precedent" in criminal investigations.
"If permitted, such a practice will effectively normalize a method whereby an investigating agency, after securing pardon on the professed premise of a 'full and true disclosure,' continues to repeatedly re-record statements of the approver over an extended period," the court stated. The judgment continued: "This could ostensibly be done to fill gaps, improve the prosecution narrative, implicate additional accused, or artificially weave missing links in the chain of circumstances."
Procedural Irregularities Highlighted in Investigation
The court emphasized that the CBI offered no explanation as to why it found it necessary to record the statement of the approver under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code repeatedly over nearly one and a half years, extending until the filing of the last supplementary chargesheet.
Judge Singh noted that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the statement of an approver is inherently suspect and should be received with great caution. "Yet, the statements of the approver were elevated and treated as though they constitute unimpeachable truth, and were uncritically incorporated as relied-upon material forming the backbone of the prosecution case," the court observed.
Broader Implications for Criminal Justice System
The court cautioned that an investigation that "departs from transparency, consistency and procedural discipline, particularly by repeatedly re-recording statements of an approver after the grant of pardon without any disclosed justification does not merely affect evidentiary appreciation, but strikes at the heart of constitutional and international guarantees."
This judicial observation comes at a critical time when multiple high-profile cases across India rely heavily on approver testimony. The court's questioning of investigative practices could have far-reaching implications for how evidence is collected and presented in corruption cases involving political figures.
The Delhi excise policy case has been one of the most closely watched legal battles in recent years, with the CBI alleging irregularities in the formulation and implementation of Delhi's now-scrapped excise policy. The court's latest observations add another layer of complexity to an already contentious legal proceeding that has significant political ramifications.
