But whatever the judges may say, the public remains sceptical. It knows that governments do not function only by issuing directions to those who occupy high positions. Central governments — whether during the NDA’s term of office or during the UPA’s — have effectively functioned not solely by notes on files, but also on the nod-and-wink of the minister in charge or of the senior bureaucrat in the ministry in charge. Whether such dignitaries do or do not so nod-and-wink in a given case is of no moment: the working of governments has been so messy in recent years that contrary to the express provisions of the Indian Evidence Act (that official acts are presumed to be regularly performed) the reality has been that as a rule official acts are not regularly or properly performed.

This is acknowledged even by the highest court. In November 2006 in the Taj Corridor Scam case (investigated by the CBI) the Supreme Court said: “In matters after matters, we find that the efficacy and ethics of the governmental authorities are progressively coming under challenge before this court by way of PIL for failure to perform their statutory duties. If this continues, a day might come when the rule of law will stand reduced to ‘a rope of sand’.”

It does appear to many — though it may not be true in a particular case (because though appearances are deceptive we have only appearances to go by) — that public servants who fill important positions in government are generally (with some notable exceptions) neither able nor willing to resist pressures from “higher-ups” (that beautifully ambivalent phrase which defies definition). Normally, the filing of a closure report by the CBI would be the end of the matter: but having regard to human frailties (and failings) there are certain safeguards provided by judicial decisions, viz that even after filing a closure report by the CBI (or by the police) the court before which it is filed has the choice to disagree with it and either direct further investigation or, after pursuing the papers already submitted to it, to take direct cognisance of and register the case and proceed to trial.

... contd.