The city court on Friday, while dismissing the tax policy corruption case, warned against the “unilateral invocation” of criminal investigative machinery like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) “at the behest of rival political actors”.
The observations were made by Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Ross Avenue Court in his 549-page order, which acquitted all the accused in the case.
The judge stressed that India’s constitutional framework consciously maintains a separation between electoral processes and criminal prosecution, with each region governed by different authorities.
The court was referring to the CBI case, which alleged that the accused rigged Delhi’s excise tax policy in favor of some liquor businessmen and diverted the alleged kickbacks to fund a political campaign in Goa.
The judge noted that electoral spending and corrupt practices by candidates are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. “The law does not envisage, but rather consciously excludes, the routine or unilateral invocation of the criminal machinery at the behest of rival political actors,” the court said.
The court observed that if investigative agencies like the CBI or the ED are allowed to use the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to enter the electoral arena, solely on the basis of allegations of “cash expenditure” or “unaccounted expenditure”, the inevitable result will be criminalization of electoral competition.
“Such an approach would arm the executive branch with coercive tools capable of influencing political outcomes, thereby eroding the level playing field that lies at the heart of free and fair elections,” the order noted.
The court said it raises a serious constitutional concern when a rival political party’s claims are “dressed up” as CBI cases or Philippine Emancipation Act proceedings.
The court asserted that the CBI had no inherent jurisdiction to investigate any crime that did not arise from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The court said that allegations of excessive electoral spending, use of cash, or undeclared campaign spending do not, in and of themselves, constitute a scheduled offense under the PMLA.
“The Election Commission, as a constitutionally constituted and isolated body, is mandated to maintain electoral discipline and justice. Investigative agencies, which form part of the executive, cannot be allowed to displace or replace this constitutional authority by assuming the functions allotted by the Constitution to the Independent Electoral Commission and Electoral Tribunals,” the court said.
