Supreme Court criticises outdated criminal investigation practices, saying people are jailed just for appearance of action. Urges modern tools like forensic accounting and witness protection.
New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court sharply criticised the Chhattisgarh government for still relying on colonial-era methods of criminal investigation. The Court said that such old-fashioned techniques are not suitable for modern-day financial crimes.
This came while hearing the State’s plea to cancel the interim bail granted to businessman Suryakant Tiwari in a case involving alleged extortion from coal transporters.
ALSO READ: Amit Shah Leads Key Meeting on New Criminal Laws in Delhi: Major Legal Reforms Ahead
The Court was dealing with serious allegations that Tiwari had links with powerful political figures, including those from the Chief Minister’s Office. He is also accused in another case related to misuse of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) funds.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi expressed serious concern about the way criminal investigations are still conducted in many parts of India.
The Bench said that mere arrests or jail sentences cannot be the only sign that justice is being served. “We only send people to jail and feel there is an optics that criminal law is in motion,” the Bench noted.
When the State argued that Tiwari had tried to threaten a co-accused even while he was in jail, the Court questioned whether imprisonment was the only method to ensure witness safety.
Justice Bagchi asked,
“The only way to protect witnesses is to keep the accused in jail? How much has your State given to the witness protection scheme? Nothing… This is just a colonial hangover. Is this an archaic 18th century investigation?”
The judges also raised the issue of whether the State had taken any steps to build a proper system to investigate complex financial crimes, like employing forensic accountants or modern investigators.
Justice Bagchi questioned,
“You have an EoW department. You don’t have financial accountants who are joined in investigations like these. Tomorrow you will have offences on the dark web, where transfer of funds will happen through cryptocurrency. Where is your capacity to handle that?”
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the State, said that Tiwari was not an ordinary accused.
“He is a big don. He is politically connected, he has muscle power, he has financial power. He is the right-hand man of the Chief Minister,”
he stated. He also alleged that Tiwari had tampered with witnesses from within jail and stressed the seriousness of the coal levy scam, where transporters were allegedly forced to pay ₹25 per tonne.
In response, the Court said that criminal trials should not just rely on accusations but must be based on solid evidence, supported by a stronger legal infrastructure.
The Court observed,
“Judges don’t do justice in vacuum. They require stakeholders like investigators, able prosecutors… This is the problem. In India, witnesses will keep getting influenced due to peer pressure, due to several circumstances. You need to come up with more technological methods,”
The Bench also expressed frustration with the slow pace of trials, saying that this delay made bail the default outcome.
Justice Kant remarked,
“If these trials are to take 5 years, 7 years to conclude, the fait accompli is known. Nothing is going to happen. You need to have dedicated courts dealing with no other case,”
However, the judges acknowledged that most states lacked the financial strength to set up such dedicated courts.
Justice Kant added,
“Most of the states nowadays are struggling every month to generate revenue and pay salaries. They don’t have priority to establish special courts, dedicated courts, etc. for day-to-day trials,”
When Jethmalani pointed out that repeated, baseless applications were stalling the proceedings, the Court said the solution lies in reforming the way trials are conducted, not just in increasing detentions.
Justice Kant said,
“If we ask a judicial officer to concentrate on this, that poor fellow will do it at the cost of some senior citizen, some other person who is languishing in jail. Personally, I am not in favour of blindly increasing cadre strength. It’s time for specialised courts,”
Another major concern raised by the Court was the excessive reliance on statements made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – which records a witness or accused’s statement before a magistrate.
The Court made it clear that such statements should only support other evidence, not be the main foundation of a case.
The Bench stated,
“Forget about that confession. Place other evidence and then use that confession. It should be the other way around. 164 should be supporting evidence, not substantive evidence,”
As Jethmalani referred to WhatsApp messages and other forms of digital proof, the judges welcomed this move towards more trustworthy evidence.
“Don’t tell us about diary entries… WhatsApp is your best evidence. Weak evidence is the witness who is flip-flopping. So forget that. You have digital evidence,”
the Court remarked.
ALSO READ: ‘A Fair Investigation is the Pillar of Justice’: Madras HC’s Stand on Money Laundering
Appearing for Tiwari, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that his client had already spent more than three years in jail and others in similar cases had received bail. He claimed that the State was only objecting to his bail to make a public example out of him.
“This is a complete waste of judicial time. Bail has been granted in identical circumstances. Why not me?”
Rohatgi submitted.
After hearing all arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its final order in the case.
Case Title:
Suryakant Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Corruption Act
