(This was first published as a blog on Union Minister Arun Jaitley’s official Facebook page.)
There is a fundamental difference between investigative adventurism and professional investigation.
Investigative adventurism involves casting the net too wide including people with no mens rea or even having a common intention to commit an offence, relying on presumptions and surmises with no legally admissible evidence.
Adventurism leads to media leaks, ruins reputations and eventually invites strictures and not convictions. In the process, the targets are ruined because of harassment, loss of reputation and financial costs. It costs people their career.
Professional investigation targets the real accused on the basis of actual and admissible evidences. It rules out fanciful presumptions. There is no personal malice or corruption. It targets the guilty and protects the innocent. It secures convictions and furthers public interest.
One of the reasons why our conviction rates are poor is that adventurism and megalomania overtakes our investigators and professionalism takes a back seat.
Sitting thousands of kilometres away, when I read the list of potential targets in the ICICI case, the thought that crossed my mind was again the same – instead of focusing primarily on the target, is a journey to nowhere (or everywhere) being undertaken?
If we include the entire who’s who of the banking Industry – with or without evidence – what cause are we serving or actually hurting.
My advice to our investigators – follow the advice of Arjun in the Mahabharata – just concentrate on the bullseye.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)