Political neutrality of investigative agencies is often questioned when politically prominent figures face probes. Discuss with reference to recent state-level corruption inquiries.

Investigative agencies derive legitimacy from procedural fidelity, not outcomes. When probes against prominent politicians are launched selectively or soon after a change of regime, the public reads process as politics — a perception problem visible in recent State-level corruption inquiries.

Why neutrality is doubted

• Timing and target: Kerala's 2026 order for a police inquiry into the CMRL–Exalogic payoff allegations named the Leader of Opposition and former Chief Minister and his family, though the material had been in the public domain for years through earlier corporate-fraud proceedings [7].
• Process becomes punishment: of PMLA cases, 1,739 were at trial stage as on 31 March 2025 while only 47 had been decided, with attached assets exceeding ₹1.5 lakh crore — reputational and financial costs precede any verdict [1].
• Wide untrammelled discretion: the State Police Chief alone fixes the inquiry's nature, agency and duration, making "we are only following the law" difficult to verify [7].
• Mutual distrust institutionalised: several States have withdrawn general consent under Section 6, DSPE Act, 1946 [3][4], so even the choice of investigating agency now looks partisan.

The countervailing legal case

• Section 66, PMLA, 2002 obliges the ED to share information with other authorities, who are expected to act — inaction is itself unlawful [2].
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) upheld the ED's attachment and investigative powers, though review petitions remain pending [6].
• Ordering a preliminary inquiry under Lalita Kumari (2013) — mandated for corruption and commercial-fraud allegations — is the gentler option; a vindictive government could have pressed for an immediate FIR [5].

Thus the legal trigger may be genuine even when political suspicion is reasonable; both can be true. Credibility is best restored procedurally — time-bound preliminary inquiries with outcomes placed on record, disclosure of the originating document to the accused, and a statutory framework replacing the on-off consent regime, as a Parliamentary Standing Committee has urged [4]. Neutrality, ultimately, is demonstrated through transparent procedure, the essence of Article 14's guarantee against arbitrariness.