NEW DELHI — Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Praveen Sood has stated that enforcing the law against Indian citizens during periods of domestic unrest presents a more complex challenge than combating transnational terrorism. Speaking during a press briefing, Sood highlighted the delicate balance between maintaining constitutional authority and respecting civil liberties, a tension that has come to the forefront following the agency’s controversial response to the “Chakka Jam” protests at Mumbai’s Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA).
The Director’s remarks come amid intensifying scrutiny over the CBI’s deployment of anti-riot units against protesters earlier this month. The incident has sparked a national debate regarding the role of premier investigative agencies when they are transitioned into roles of active crowd control and enforcement against the public.
The CSMIA Incident
On October 25, 2026, thousands of activists participating in the Chakka Jam movement converged on the Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport. The protesters sought to draw attention to allegations of systemic police brutality within the state, utilizing the high-visibility location of the airport to disrupt flight operations and force a government response.
The CBI, which had been tasked with investigating the underlying causes of the unrest and maintaining order at the site, deployed anti-riot units to disperse the crowds. The resulting confrontation led to more than 100 arrests. Reports indicate that multiple protesters and security personnel sustained injuries during the operation.
While the agency maintained that the force used was necessary to restore critical infrastructure operations, the optics of the crackdown drew immediate condemnation. Legal experts and opposition lawmakers have accused the CBI of employing excessive force, suggesting that the agency prioritized the rapid suppression of dissent over a measured, investigative approach.
The Challenge of Domestic Enforcement
Director Sood’s public admission reflects a growing institutional awareness of the friction inherent in domestic policing. “Dealing with domestic unrest demands nuance, as it involves balancing constitutional authority with civil liberties,” Sood stated. He further elaborated that while terrorism involves an external enemy with a clear designation, confronting citizens risks a different kind of failure: the erosion of public trust.
“Unlike terrorism, where the enemy is external, confronting one’s own people risks escalating tensions and undermining public trust in institutions,” Sood said. He defended the agency’s mandate to uphold the law “without fear or favor” but conceded that operating within a democracy requires a level of restraint to ensure that law enforcement does not “inadvertently silence legitimate voices.”
Why It Matters
The statements by the CBI chief are significant because they signal an internal acknowledgment of the risks associated with the “securitization” of domestic protest. The CBI is primarily designed as a white-collar crime and anti-corruption agency. Its increasing involvement in managing public unrest suggests a shift in how the state utilizes its most powerful investigative tools.
When an agency tasked with impartial investigation also acts as the primary force of suppression, the potential for a conflict of interest arises. The ability of the CBI to maintain its image as an independent arbiter of justice is compromised if it is perceived as a tool for political stabilization or the silencing of civic grievances.
Analysis:
The tension described by Director Sood underscores a systemic crisis in Indian law enforcement: the blurring of lines between investigation and enforcement. By admitting that domestic unrest is “tougher” than tackling terror, Sood is highlighting a psychological and operational gap in the agency’s training. Terrorist operations are typically handled through a lens of national security and intelligence, where the objective is neutralization. Domestic protest, however, is a political and social phenomenon that requires de-escalation and mediation.
The CBI’s struggle to navigate this transition suggests that the agency may be ill-equipped for the role of a riot-control entity. The use of anti-riot units by a federal investigative body—rather than local police or specialized paramilitary forces—indicates a centralization of power that may bypass traditional community-policing safeguards.
Background and Institutional Context
The controversy surrounding the Chakka Jam protests does not exist in a vacuum. It follows a pattern of high-profile clashes between the state and civil society, including the 2021 farm law protests and the 2019 anti-CAA demonstrations. In those instances, allegations of disproportionate force led to prolonged parliamentary inquiries and judicial scrutiny.
The current climate is further complicated by data on institutional accountability. A 2025 report by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) revealed a 30% increase in complaints against security forces since 2023. This trend suggests a widening gap between the state’s enforcement mechanisms and the public’s expectation of human rights protections.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India issued specific guidelines in 2024 regarding riot control and the use of force. These guidelines explicitly emphasize proportionality and the necessity of de-escalation to prevent the loss of life and the infringement of constitutional rights. The CBI’s actions at CSMIA are currently being measured against these judicial benchmarks.
Advocate Rajesh Mehta, a constitutional law expert, noted that the dual role of the CBI creates an inherent instability. “When agencies like the CBI are tasked with enforcing laws they are also investigating, it creates a conflict of interest,” Mehta stated. “Transparency in such cases is non-negotiable.”
What to Watch Next
The immediate focus will be on whether the CBI or an external body initiates an independent inquiry into the conduct of the anti-riot units at CSMIA. A refusal to conduct a transparent review of the injuries and arrests could further validate claims of institutional bias.
Observers will also be watching for any shifts in the CBI’s operational mandate. If the agency continues to be deployed in roles that mirror paramilitary policing, it may face increased pressure from the judiciary to separate its investigative functions from its enforcement capabilities.
Finally, the response of the National Human Rights Commission to the specific events of October 25 will be a critical indicator of whether the 30% rise in complaints noted in their 2025 report will lead to actual policy reform or remain a statistical observation.
Conclusion
Director Praveen Sood’s comments serve as a candid admission of the difficulties facing India’s premier investigative agency in an era of heightened civic volatility. While the CBI maintains its commitment to the rule of law, the events at CSMIA highlight the precarious nature of using high-level federal agencies to manage domestic dissent. As the agency navigates the space between security and liberty, its credibility will depend less on its ability to disperse crowds and more on its willingness to be held accountable for how it does so.
Sources:
– The Hindu, “Facing own people tougher than tackling terror, says CBI chief,” October 28, 2025. [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/facing-own-people-tougher-than-tackling-terror-says-cbi-chief/article71287465.ece](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/facing-own-people-tougher-than-tackling-terror-says-cbi-chief/article71287465.ece)
– National Human Rights Commission, “Annual Report on Police Accountability,” 2025.
– Supreme Court of India, “Guidelines for Riot Control and Use of Force,” 2024. [https://supremecourtofindia.org/guidelines-riot-control](https://supremecourtofindia.org/guidelines-riot-control)
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
