The Madras High Court has strongly criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), stating that the agency's working culture has deteriorated to a point where it is widely perceived as biased and untrustworthy.

A Bench led by Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that the CBI now faces widespread public disapproval due to its "lopsided investigations."

In an April 28 judgment, the Court observed:

“Nowadays the working culture of the CBI has reduced to the level of being criticized by everyone for their lopsided investigation … CBI officers think they have sky-high powers and no one can question them. Hence, people feel their working culture is plummeting down, and this Court also finds the said allegations have some reason.”

To restore public trust, the Court issued a series of directions aimed at overhauling the investigative process of the CBI. These include:

1. Enhanced Supervision: The CBI Director must closely monitor the inclusion of accused persons in FIRs and final reports.

2. Regular Oversight: The Director should continually oversee the progress of investigations, ensuring that evidence is properly gathered and omissions are avoided.

3. Legal Advisory Team: A separate legal team must be constituted to guide investigating officers on relevant legal principles and assess the appropriateness of filing cases, thereby preventing frivolous or weak prosecutions.

4. Use of Technology: The CBI must equip its officers with scientific and technological tools to strengthen the quality of investigations.

These observations came while the Court was acquitting eight individuals, including a former Chief Manager of a Tirunelveli bank, who had been convicted in 2019 for allegedly defrauding the bank of ₹2 crore by misusing loan sanctions. The trial court had previously acquitted some accused while convicting others. On appeal, the High Court found that the allegations lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

Calling it a "classical case" of poor investigation, the Court said:

“This court finds lapse in every stage and this is a classical case to show the CBI had conducted a shoddy investigation.”

The Court criticized the lower court for selectively convicting some while acquitting others, despite the evidence against all being largely similar. Accepting the appellants' arguments, Justice Ramakrishnan said the flawed investigation and prosecution had led to a miscarriage of justice.

The judge further highlighted systemic issues within the CBI, stating he had come across several lapses in other CBI-related cases as well. He pointed out instances of selective targeting, failure to obtain scientific expert opinions, and even allegations of bribery against CBI officers—backed in one case by electronic evidence produced in court.

“This is only the tip of the iceberg,” the judge remarked, underscoring the urgency for reform.

Justice Ramakrishnan emphasized that the CBI’s failure to adopt modern technology and maintain investigative integrity had eroded public trust. He stated:

“Question of fair investigation is in peril. This has eroded the faith of people with CBI. People have more faith in the Special Investigation Department than even in the Courts… It should regain the said faith so that it does not cause any harm to the reputation attached with them.”

Senior Advocate John Sathyan (briefed by M/s Veera Associates), Senior Counsel T. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Advocate V. Kathirvelu, and others represented the appellants. Special Public Prosecutor M. Karunanithi appeared for the CBI.