Employing institutions under its control to intimidate opposition parties or those who oppose its political ideology is a clear threat to democracy.
Release Date – 12:45 AM, Wed – 21 December 22
by Jandhyala Ravishankar
Hyderabad: Putting pressure on opposing political parties under the pretext of ideological or political issues is a common tactic used by any political party. Parliamentary democracy provides ample opportunity for political parties to express their views on any issue and exert pressure on the government through debate or discussion in the legislature, which is one of the rights enshrined in the constitution.
But when a party in power chooses to ignore the democratic way of disagreeing with another party and instead uses institutions under its control to intimidate opposition parties or those who oppose its political ideology, it is a clear threat to democracy. This is evident in India, where the BJP is throwing all accepted norms behind it in an attempt to gain an advantage over the opposition.
BJP political conspiracy
The political machinations of the BJP are very evident in Telangana, where the central ruling party is playing a different political game. The recent example of the MLA poaching attempt is the best example of how far the BJP can bend to gain political brownie points. Central agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Income Tax (IT) department have become voluntary tools in the BJP’s political game targeting the political power Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS), which seeks to disagree with many agendas power on.
While this strategy has yielded positive results in states such as Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, where the BJP managed to buy off lawmakers to form a government, the attempt has backfired in Telangana, where at the time BRS legislators turned the tables against BJP surrogates who provided them huge sums of money. BRS legislators reported to the police and recorded the entire conversation on video and tape, making it an airtight case. The BRS has also acted swiftly in sharing evidence with judiciary, media organizations and political parties across the country.
But now there is a situation where the accused in the MLA poaching case has been released on bail thanks to a litany of cases brought by BJP advocates to delay the progress of the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up for the purpose . Ironically, the plaintiff in the case, BRS legislator Rohit Reddy, has now become the target of harassment by the Enforcement Bureau. Interestingly, Rohit Reddy was questioned together for several hours without being informed of the case for questioning.
At the same time, the SIT investigation faces many obstacles. Despite the Supreme Court directive to complete the investigation within four weeks, delays continue due to the filing of various cases. When the Supreme Court made it clear that SIT could continue its independent investigation, the BJP objected through multiple petitions and obtained interim orders from the ACB Court and the High Court.
Flaws in the BJP Argument
In fact, within 24 hours of the filing of the FIR in this case, the BJP State Secretary G Premendar Reddy filed the petition. Various technical issues were raised in the BJP petition opposing the arrest of the three BJP agents on the grounds that notification was not given under Section 41A of the CrPC. Based on this argument, the ACB Court refused to send the accused to judicial remand. They were later remanded in custody after the High Court intervened. But when SIT issued notices to BJP state leader BL Santosh and defense lawyer Srinivas under Section 41A of the CrPC, the High Court ordered that they not be arrested. Even so, the plaintiff in the case, legislator Rohit Reddy, is now being pursued by the ED, which has provided no information on the case registered against him.
Another argument of the BJP is that SIT officers are working under the control of the Telangana government, but that is also untenable because the CBI is working under the control of the coalition government. The BJP did not answer this question. Another legal issue is that when a notice under section 41A is challenged, it should be remembered that there is corroborating evidence in the form of video, audio, telephone messages and photographs. Therefore, SIT not only has the power to issue 41 A notices, but also has the power to arrest them. There is also no need to obtain prior permission from any court. The SIT memorandum filed in the ACB court is only to provide information to the court after naming BL Santosh as the defendant in the case. The High Court will now issue an order to the ACB Court dismissing the memorandum submitted to it.
In this context, we also have to look at how some leaders were let off by the ED after joining the BJP. The best example is Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who is accused in the CBI-registered Narada Chit Fund case. But the investigation has been put on hold after he joined the BJP. Another example is Mukul Roy of Trinamool Congress in Bengal and others in Andhra Pradesh. It was not until they joined the BJP that the central agency stopped investigating. Compare this to the case of Rohit Reddy, the plaintiff in the MLA poaching case.
Despite his repeated requests to be informed about the case in which he was trying to be interrogated, the ED did not provide any information and instead interrogated him at length. Moreover, another flaw in the BJP’s argument is that no defendant has the right to choose the investigative agency, and the court has no power to stop the investigation under any circumstances. At best, in some rare cases, such as so-called fake encounters, courts have asked other agencies to investigate.
In the current circumstances, it is illegal to seek an investigation by another agency with political motives. Furthermore, the promise to pay a bribe is itself a crime under Section 120 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
(The author is a senior defense lawyer of the High Court)
