On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned a Telangana High Court ruling that had imposed limitations on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during its questioning of Kadapa Member of Parliament (MP) YS Avinash Reddy, who is suspected of murder.
The High Court had ordered the CBI to tape its questioning of the MP, give its questions in written form, and distribute them in advance.
Allowing this kind of order would amount to rewriting criminal law jurisprudence, said a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.
If this is the standard for investigation, then it is better to wind up the CBI! Imagine other accused will cite this as a precedent. First anticipatory bail and then questionnaire to CBI. This is like rewriting criminal law jurisprudence. CBI may or may not arrest you, it may not arrest you as it seems, but this is not the way. If this is the yardstick, then the same written questionnaire will have to apply in all CBI and ED cases…Why do we need the CBI then at all?
Court Observed
The Supreme Court’s ruling states that the High Court’s instructions were “premature” in its ruling.
We are of the view that the High Court has misapplied itself and passed an extraordinary order…Such orders prejudice the investigation especially when CBI is ascertaining the role of several accused. Thus directions of the High Court were unwarranted.
CJI Chandrachud said when the session came to an end,
We were really perturbed by the High Court order. If CBI had to arrest you, they would have done so earlier. CBI has shown utmost restraint.
Even during the latest hearing on Friday, the Bench objected to the rulings made by the Telangana High Court when it heard Reddy’s request for anticipatory relief.
What kind of order is this by the High Court? Atrocious order. Unacceptable,
the court stated
The High Court was presented with a bail motion in relation to the investigation into the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy. The chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, has a relative named YS Avinash Reddy. Sunita Narredy, the deceased’s daughter, appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
According to the petitioner before the supreme court, the decision that is being challenged has effectively halted the investigation, which was supposed to be finished by April 30 of this year in accordance with earlier directives from the court.
It was claimed that the MP was not entitled to any protection because she had not cooperated with the investigation agency. The highest court was initially leaning towards allowing the accused to change his plea before the High Court during the hearing today.
However, after issuing the order nullifying the contested decision, it concluded the matter. Tomorrow is the anticipated second day of the High Court’s pre-arrest bail hearing.
Sidharth Luthra, a senior advocates, represented the CBI. For Avinash Reddy, senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Mukul Rohatgi appeared.
