Critically examine the Supreme Court's observations on selective rigour in investigation by central probe agencies against 'powerful persons.' What safeguards can ensure impartial investigation regardless of political status?

Hearing the Salboni land-grab matter, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant orally rebuked central agencies for "dragging feet" in cases involving powerful persons while moving swiftly against ordinary accused [1]. The remark touches the core of Article 14 — equality in the process of law.

Why the criticism is well-founded

• Unequal rigour offends Article 14: the Calcutta High Court had earlier expressed "despair" at the low intensity of interrogation in the same case [1].
• Delay dilutes evidence: the ED itself cited roughly ₹30 crore routed to a company linked to a sitting MP to justify custodial interrogation — a trail left largely unpursued [1].
• Thin operational autonomy: the CBI works under the DSPE Act, 1946, with only the Director's minimum two-year tenure (Section 4B) statutorily insulated [2].
• The 2nd ARC's Fifth Report, Public Order, traced such selectivity to political interference and the non-separation of investigation from law-and-order duties [3].

Why the criticism needs qualification

• Not every delay is mala fide — money-laundering probes depend on predicate offences, layered corporate trails and cross-border evidence, a scheme upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) [4].
• Selectivity cuts both ways: several States allege over-zealous use of agencies against opponents and have withdrawn general consent under Section 6, DSPE Act [5].
• Oral observations are not judicial findings; excessive monitoring risks the court displacing the investigator.

Safeguards

• Statutory charter for the ED/CBI with collegium-based appointment, fixed tenure and financial autonomy [2].
• Time-bound investigation with recorded reasons for delay, and periodic status reports to the supervising court.
• Separation of investigation from law-and-order and prosecution wings, as the ARC urged [3].
• Parliamentary/CVC oversight and transparent, criteria-based case allocation.

Impartiality is measured not by whom agencies pursue, but by whether they pursue all alike. Insulating investigative machinery through statutory autonomy and time-bound accountability — rather than case-by-case judicial censure — would restore public trust and give real content to equality before law.