The bench headed by justice RM Lodha must have been exasperated. Here was the chief of the premier investigating agency of the country, admitting on an affidavit that he had indeed “shared” with political masters a draft of the progress report on the probe into a scam which involved government departments.

This man, CBI chief Ranjit Sinha, has been granted a fixed two-year tenure so that he does not have fulfill the “desires” of the political masters. And yet the report was shared. Not only that, in the previous affidavit, the agency had lied before the apex court. What words can be employed in reacting to this?

The bench eventually said, "A very disturbing feature is there in the affidavit. Why was the court kept in the dark about sharing the probe report with government? You don't need to take instructions from political masters."
Also, "Our first exercise will be to liberate CBI from political interference. CBI's independent position must be restored.”

Then, it proceeded to pose a number of questions to the agency:

* Why didn’t the CBI admit on March 12 that the status report had been shared with the executive?

* Was the law minister entitled to call such a meeting?

* What changes were made in the report, if any?

* What will be the effect of the changes in the status report?

* Does it not erode the trust the court showed in CBI?

* Who else was shown the report?