Free the bird fromIts 'attack-dog' cage

One characteristic of any autocratic state is its inability, or unwillingness, to distinguish between state machinery and political tool. India is not an autocratic state. So, Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan stating that CBI should do its bit to dispel 'the notion of it being a caged parrot' should be heard seriously. Description of the central crime investigating agency as a caged parrot was coined by Justice R M Lodha in 2013. Last week's reminder came in the context of Bhuyan declaring Arvind Kejriwal's arrest by CBI in a corruption case as 'unjustified'. Calling for the need of the statutory body to be 'Caesar's wife' - above suspicion (of being a mere government tool for intimidation) - and independent 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' is, indeed, the need of the hour.

Whataboutery - or, rather, whenaboutery - to kick the can down previous administrations, just won't do. First, CBI must be redefined as an independent, professional body, and not, to continue animal metaphors, a government attack dog. Even as it reports to the executive, it should be placed under parliamentary oversight through the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. Second, its personnel should be independent. Currently, CBI is staffed by IPS members who view it as a prestigious central posting, potentially leading to competition to curry favour with GoI. To avoid such impressions, CBI must recruit personnel independently.

Third, the agency should report to the law and justice ministry rather than to the Department of Personnel and Training and PMO. Optics matter. Fourth, there must be jurisdictional clarity. Fifth, clear mandates must be given to it to minimise tampering with evidence and witnesses. India's open society will benefit by setting the bird 'free'.