By K Raveendran
The latest decision by the Modi government to grant sanction for prosecution of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia marks yet another chapter in the ongoing narrative of central agencies being leveraged for political ends. At its core, the move highlights a pattern that has become increasingly familiar, where the deployment of institutions ostensibly meant to uphold justice is perceived as a tool for advancing the agenda of the ruling party. The context and timing of this development further underscore the strategic motivations behind such actions, raising serious concerns about the independence of these institutions and their role in safeguarding democratic principles. ‘Caged parrot’ has become part of the contemporary political idiom.
The home ministry sanction for prosecution comes three months after the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in November, emphasizing that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must seek prior sanction, akin to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to prosecute public servants. This judgment was hailed as a safeguard against potential misuse of investigative powers, reinforcing the principle that prosecution should not proceed without adequate oversight. But the Centre reserved the sanction for use ahead of the Delhi assembly election.
This development must also be viewed against the backdrop of increasing scrutiny of the ED by the judiciary. In recent times, the agency has faced severe criticism from various courts for its handling of money laundering cases. Several arrests made by the ED have been labelled as “illegal,” with courts ordering the immediate release of individuals who were detained without sufficient evidence or due process. Such instances have raised serious questions about the ED’s impartiality and its adherence to legal norms, casting a shadow over its credibility as an investigative body.
The selective nature of ED’s actions has only deepened suspicions about its motivations. The agency’s zeal in pursuing opposition leaders contrasts starkly with its apparent reluctance to investigate similar allegations against those aligned with the ruling party. This disparity fuels perceptions of bias and undermines public confidence in the fairness of the legal process. It also raises concerns about the erosion of institutional autonomy, with agencies that were designed to act as checks on power increasingly being perceived as instruments of state control.
As elections loom on the horizon, the ruling party seems intent on neutralizing influential opposition leaders who have the potential to galvanize resistance against it. Kejriwal, in particular, represents a significant political challenge, given his success in establishing AAP as a formidable force in Delhi and expanding its footprint to other states. By targeting him and his close associates, the government appears to be attempting to weaken AAP’s credibility and diminish its electoral prospects.
The government’s reliance on central agencies to achieve political objectives reveals a troubling disregard for the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Democratic governance requires that institutions function independently and without interference, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially. When these principles are compromised, it undermines the legitimacy of the state and erodes trust in its institutions. The repeated invocation of central agencies in cases involving opposition leaders creates the impression of a government more concerned with consolidating power than upholding democratic values.
The broader implications of this trend are deeply concerning. In a healthy democracy, institutions like the ED and CBI serve as vital checks on corruption and abuse of power. Their credibility depends on their ability to operate without fear or favour, applying the law uniformly regardless of political affiliations. When these agencies are perceived as tools of the ruling party, their effectiveness is compromised, and their actions are viewed with suspicion. This not only weakens the institutions themselves but also diminishes public faith in the justice system as a whole.
The judiciary’s recent interventions in cases involving the ED provide a glimmer of hope, highlighting the role of an independent judiciary in safeguarding democratic norms. By calling out instances of illegal detention and emphasizing the need for due process, the courts have reaffirmed their commitment to upholding the rule of law. However, the judiciary alone cannot counterbalance the systemic issues plaguing investigative agencies. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to strengthen institutional autonomy and ensure that agencies are insulated from political pressures.
By targeting opposition leaders and using central agencies as instruments of political vendetta, the ruling party risks deepening polarization and fostering an environment of mistrust. Such tactics may yield short-term gains, but they come at the cost of eroding the foundations of democratic governance. In the long run, the health of a democracy depends on the willingness of all political actors to respect institutional boundaries and uphold the principles of fairness and justice. (IPA Service)