Opposition parties claim to abuse agencies such as the CBI and ED.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear a petition from 14 opposition parties accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government of abusing its power and using central research bureaus to harass and intimidate its political rivals.
The petition, filed by senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the opposition parties, claimed that there had been a “drastic and exponential increase” in the number of cases registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against opposition leaders since 2014 when Prime Minister Modi came to power.
Mr Singhvi cited statistics to show that the ED had registered six times more cases in the past seven years than in the previous decade, but had a conviction rate of just 23 per cent. He also claimed that 95 percent of ED and CBI cases were against opposition leaders across the country and that this was a clear indication of political vendetta and bias.
However, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned the validity and feasibility of the petition. He asked Mr Singhvi whether he is seeking immunity for opposition parties from investigation and prosecution, and whether they have special rights as citizens.
Mr Singhvi clarified that he was not asking for general protection or exemption for opposition leaders, but only for fair and impartial application of the law. He said the government misused its agencies to weaken and demoralize the opposition and that this was detrimental to democracy and the rule of law.
He also argued that the government is violating the “triple test” set by the Supreme Court for arresting suspects, which requires reasonable grounds, necessity and proportionality. He said many opposition leaders were arrested without any evidence or justification, and that this affected their ability to carry out their duties as elected representatives.
However, the Chief Justice was not convinced by Mr Singhvi’s arguments and said the petition was essentially a plea for politicians. The petition failed to consider the rights and interests of other citizens who may be involved in corruption or crime, Judge Chandrachud said.
He said the Supreme Court cannot set general guidelines or principles for politicians alone, and that it would be more appropriate to take individual cases to court. He also suggested that Mr Singhvi could raise his concerns in parliament.
Mr Singhvi then decided to withdraw his petition and said he would come back to the court if there were more specific cases or instances of abuse of power by the government.
