E-Paper
Kejriwal exoneration: Court warns on mixing polls, criminal probes
A city court dismissed excise policy corruption case, warning against using CBI, ED for political gains, stressing electoral integrity and separation of powers.
A city court on Friday, while dismissing the excise policy corruption case, cautioned against the “unilateral invocation” of criminal investigative machinery such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at “the behest of rival political actors”.
The observations were made by special judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court in his 549-page order, which cleared all accused in the case.
The judge underscored that India’s constitutional framework consciously maintains a separation between electoral processes and criminal prosecution, with each sphere governed by distinct authorities.
The court was referring to the CBI’s case, which alleged that the accused manipulated the Delhi excise policy to favour certain liquor businessmen and diverted alleged kickbacks to fund a political campaign in Goa.
The judge pointed out that election expenditure and corrupt practices by candidates are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. “The act does not envisage, indeed, it consciously excludes, the routine or unilateral invocation of criminal machinery at the behest of rival political actors,” the court said.
The court observed that if investigative agencies such as CBI or ED were permitted to use the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to enter the electoral arena, merely on allegations of “cash spending” or “unaccounted expenditure”, the unavoidable consequence would be criminalisation of electoral competition.
“Such an approach would arm the executive with coercive instruments capable of influencing political outcomes, thereby eroding the level playing field that lies at the heart of free and fair elections,” the order observed.
The court said that it is a matter of serious constitutional concern when allegations by a rival political party are “dressed up” as CBI cases or PMLA proceedings.
The court emphasised that CBI had no inherent jurisdiction to probe any offence which did not arose out of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Allegations of excess election expenditure, cash usage, or undeclared campaign spending, the court said, did not by themselves constitute a scheduled offence under the statute of PMLA.
“The Election Commission, as a constitutionally created and insulated body, is entrusted with maintaining electoral discipline and fairness. Investigative agencies, which form part of the executive, cannot be permitted to displace or supplant this constitutional authority by assuming functions that the Constitution has reserved for the ECI and the election courts,” the court said.
