Examine the issue of accountability and transparency in state police investigations, with reference to recent High Court interventions ordering CBI probes.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →In this answer
Accountability means answerability for how an investigation is conducted; transparency means that the process is visible to the victim and to courts. The Bombay High Court's order of 2 September 2026 transferring the 2020 Disha Salian death case to the CBI [1] shows both remain contested in state policing.
Accountability deficits
- Selective FIR registration: Lalita Kumari (2013) made registration mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence [2], yet the Salian death was closed as an Accidental Death Report for years without an FIR [1].
- Political influence over local police weakens impartiality, especially where the accused are influential — the very ground on which courts have transferred probes.
- Capacity constraints: high vacancies and multi-tasking by an overburdened force dilute investigative quality [5].
Transparency gaps
- Basic records — such as the post-mortem report — reached the family only after judicial intervention, years later [1].
- Closure decisions are often opaque; the victim's family learns of them without reasons, though a protest petition remains available [1].
- The 2nd ARC's 5th Report, "Public Order", therefore urged separating investigation from law-and-order duties through a specialised state crime investigation wing [6].
High Court intervention: corrective, with limits
- Under Article 226, a High Court may direct a CBI probe even without State consent, otherwise required under Section 6, DSPE Act, 1946 [3][4] — a constitutional check on police inaction.
- But it is an extraordinary remedy: six years elapsed between the death and the transfer [1], the CBI is itself understaffed, and high-profile transfers risk politicisation. Hence the Court directed that no person be treated as accused absent sufficient material [1].
Judicial transfer treats the symptom; the disease is institutional. Implementing the Prakash Singh directions — Police Complaints Authorities, fixed tenures and separation of investigation [5] — alongside the ARC's recommendations would make honest, visible investigation the norm, and CBI transfer a rare exception rather than the victim's only route to the fair-procedure guarantee of Article 21.
Sources
- 1Bombay High Court orders CBI probe into Disha Salian's death — LiveLaw (2 September 2026)ADR classification, delayed post-mortem, CBI transfer, protest-petition liberty, "no accused without sufficient material" safeguard
- 2Mandatory Registration of FIR — Supreme Court Guidelines (*Lalita Kumari*, 2013)compulsory FIR on disclosure of a cognizable offence
- 3Supreme Court eSCR / Judgments Portal — *State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights* (2010)High Court's Article 226 power to order a CBI probe without State consent
- 4Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6 — CBIState consent requirement for CBI jurisdiction
- 5Police Reforms in India — PRS Legislative Researchvacancies and overburdened forces; *Prakash Singh* directions
- 6Second ARC, Fifth Report, "Public Order" — DARPGseparation of investigation from law-and-order functions