The bench said that the petition was centred around politicians, who are citizens too, and there cannot be any preferential treatment for them.
Published Apr 05, 2023 | 7:57 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 05, 2023 | 7:57 PM
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, 5 April, said that laying down general principles in an abstract situation would be a dangerous proposition as it can only be done in the context of specific cases.
With that, the court declined to entertain a joint petition by 14 political parties, including the BRS and the DMK, that had complained against the misuse of the CBI/ED to target Opposition leaders and sought to lay down of guidelines governing arrest, remand, bail in the cases not involving bodily harm.
Allowing the withdrawal of the petition by 14 political parties after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi did not succeed in persuading the court, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud — heading a bench also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala — said: “We can lay down the general principles to be followed (in other cases as well) from a specific case, but to lay down general principle in an abstract situation would be a dangerous proposition.”
The bench said that the entire petition was centred around politicians, who too are citizens, and there cannot be, in law, any preferential treatment for them, and they cannot be placed on a pedestal higher or seek special treatment than other citizens.
“Politicians are citizens and can’t enjoy any higher protection,” the bench said.
Permitting Singhvi to withdraw the petition, Chief Justice Chandrachud asked him to come back with an individual case or a group of cases involving the targeting of politicians.
Singhvi reeled out the statistics to show that since the present government came to power in 2014, 95 percent of the cases filed against politicians are against the political leaders belonging to Opposition parties.
To this, Chief Justice Chandrachud said that if they are saying that there was selective targeting, then “come to us, we are there”. However, the CJI later clarified that “come to us” means go to the high court and take recourse to judicial remedies. “Come to us in individual cases, we are there,” CJI Chandrachud told Singhvi.
Singhvi referred to “uneven” space for the Opposition leaders and sign of “authoritarianism” with “crunching” space for Opposition.
To this Chandrachud replied, “When you say there is a crunch in political space… When you (political parties) argue that there is a chilling effect on Opposition because of CBI/ED cases against Opposition political leaders, the answer lies in the political space and not in the courts.”
Singhvi said that Opposition leaders are faced with an uneven political field, the process of law is, in itself, a punishment and there can’t be a “weaponisation of law”. He said that Opposition leaders were spending time dealing with cases foisted on them.
Apart from the DMK of Tamil Nadu and BRS of Telangana, the 12 other parties that filed the petition are: The Congress, CPI(M), CPI, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Trinamool Congress (TMC), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), Janata Dal (U), Samajwadi Party, and J&K National Conference.
They had, in their joint petition, said that the CBI/ED were being used as “tools of harassment” of political opponents, pointing out that all the raids targetting the politicians belonging to Opposition parties have resulted in the filing of complainers in 23 cases.
On the question of arrest and sending an accused to remand of the investigating agencies, the petitioner parties had said that it should be incumbent on the CBI, ED, and the court as well that the triple test — whether the accused is a flight risk, can tamper with evidence, and can influence/intimidate the witnesses — has to be satisfied.
In case a triple test is not satisfied, the alternatives like interrogation at fixed hours or at most house arrest be used to meet the demands of investigation.
As far as bail is concerned, the petitioner parties had said that the principle of “bail as rule, jail as exception” be followed by all courts, especially in cases where non-violent offences are alleged, and that bail be denied only where the triple test is met.
