Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran has criticised the Bihar government’s method of carrying out the second phase of the Special Investigation Report (SIR), claiming that the justifications given in the official notification were almost verbatim the same as those relied upon in the first phase. His statements, made at a court hearing, have raised serious questions about how the state conducted its investigations and the legality of the decision to extend the investigation.
Advocate Questions Rationale Behind Second SIR
Ramachandran informed the court that the second phase of the notification given by the state had no independent reasoning and did not show any new grounds to warrant a prolonged investigation. According to him, when a government decides to make a renewed or widened investigation, it must demonstrate certain situations, discoveries, or evident gaps warranting the investigation.
He replicated the identical defense and, as a result, the state failed to cross a legal test in initiating the second SIR, which brings up the question of procedural fairness and administrative transparency.
Read also:
- Tejashwi Yadav is now the undisputed leader of the Mahagathbandhan
- INDIA bloc to move an impeachment motion against Justice G.R. Swaminathan
Court Seeks Clarification from Bihar Government
Since Ramachandran had submitted his claims, the court had requested that the government of Bihar explain the reason why the second-stage inquiry was launched without any specific reasons. There were comments by the judges that, though the state is at liberty to undertake the subsequent stages of an investigation, it should be backed with a substantive explanation and not with a textual repetition.
The bench has asked the government to submit a detailed response to provide the need of the new SIR and the conditions under which the old findings were seen to be inadequate.
Opposition Seizes on Allegations of Procedural Lapses
The issue was immediately taken up by political parties in the Opposition, which castigated the state government on the misuse of investigative procedures as political tools. According to them, the mechanical extension of probes, without proving new facts, creates a bad precedent and damages the credibility of the institutions.
Some of the leaders replied that the accusation of copy-paste reasoning is indicative of a broader issue of bureaucratic expediency, and they demanded that people be held accountable within departments where investigative notifications are drafted.
State Maintains Need for Continued Inquiry
The Bihar government officials have insisted that the second round of investigation was warranted to cover the outstanding areas of the investigation, as it could not be carried out before. They assert that the extension was a rational follow-up to the old phase and that the state was acting out of its legal mandate.
Nevertheless, they have not gone further to comment on the claim that the rationale in the notification was also copied from the previous document, that the issue is currently before the court, and an official response will be provided.
Legal Community Highlights Importance of Proper Justification
Legal monitors observe that although multi-phase inquiries are not unique in the complicated issues, the individual phases should be explained clearly to avert possible legal dilemmas. They also stress that the courts usually seek clear justification and are cautious about state authorities making repetitive and vague announcements.
The argument, as they put it, made by Ramachandran, being a larger issue, is that it is the duty of governments to ensure that the investigations undertaken by them can be justified, transparent, and supported by concrete considerations.
Next Steps in the Case
The court will proceed with the issue once the state affidavit is presented, which is likely to clarify the reasons for initiating the second SIR. The court, based on how the government explains it then there is a possibility that it would either pass the legal test that is continuation or it would need to be subjected to further examination.
Until recently, the controversy has sparked another discussion about the quality of official inquiries and the necessity of a strong rationale in cases of expansion or widening of the scope by the authorities.
I am a versatile content writer from the MP region, covering politics, business, crime, current affairs, entertainment, video games, and sports with clear insights, engaging analysis, and timely, reader-focused updates.
