Supreme Court slams CBI in shocking courtroom drama over West Bengal judiciary

In a stunning rebuke, the Supreme Court of India has lashed out at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for casting what it called “scandalous allegations” against the entire judicial system of West Bengal. During the hearing on 20 September 2024, a bench led by Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal was visibly outraged over the CBI’s claims that West Bengal courts are operating under a “hostile environment,” especially in relation to the high-profile post-poll violence cases from 2021.

The CBI had requested the transfer of more than 40 cases outside of West Bengal, citing severe witness intimidation and pressure from the ruling All India Trinamool Congress (TMC). The agency, in its petition, claimed that victims were unable to return home due to threats and intimidation, and that the courts within the state were not equipped to handle these sensitive cases impartially.

Sensational fallout over CBI’s hostile claim

However, the tone of the petition — where the CBI alleged a prevailing “hostile atmosphere” in West Bengal’s judiciary — enraged the Supreme Court. Justice Oka condemned the agency for making such a sweeping statement about an entire state’s judicial apparatus. He remarked that accusing all courts in West Bengal of bias and poor functioning was tantamount to questioning the judiciary’s integrity, something the Supreme Court was not willing to tolerate.

The bench sharply criticised the CBI, stating that its officers “may not like a particular judicial officer or a state,” but that did not give them the right to generalise about all courts in West Bengal. The judges pointed out that district and civil judges cannot defend themselves against such allegations and added that the central agency had cast aspersions on their capability to conduct fair trials.

As soon as the issue came up, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represented the CBI, tried to mitigate the situation by admitting that there was “loose drafting” in the petition. Raju added that the agency did not intend to cast aspersions on the judiciary itself but rather on the challenges faced by witnesses outside the court. However, the bench was not convinced. Justice Oka went further to warn that if the cases were transferred out of West Bengal, it would be akin to certifying that all courts in the state were indeed hostile, a notion the Supreme Court would never endorse.

In light of the Court’s scathing remarks, the CBI withdrew its petition. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court made it clear that the transfer of cases could still be considered in the future, provided the agency submits a more carefully drafted plea that does not malign the state’s entire judicial system.

Expert opinion: A blow to central agency credibility?

Legal experts argue that this episode is likely to have lasting consequences on the credibility of central investigative agencies like the CBI. By making blanket statements about the judiciary of a state, the CBI overstepped its role as a neutral investigative body, and the Supreme Court’s harsh response reflects its zero-tolerance approach to undermining judicial independence. Senior lawyers note that this incident highlights the tension between state and central bodies when political sensitivities are at stake, as was the case with the West Bengal post-poll violence, which had a heavy political undertone involving the ruling TMC.

This dramatic turn in the proceedings has left legal observers wondering whether the CBI, in its eagerness to push through the case, underestimated the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the judiciary’s integrity at all costs.