Big blow to opposition parties, Supreme Court refuses to hear petition against ED-CBI

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has given a big blow to the opposition parties on Wednesday. 14 opposition parties had filed a petition in the Supreme Court accusing the Modi government at the Center of misuse of central agencies. In the case, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the petition, rejecting this petition of 14 opposition parties.

The petition, filed by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the opposition parties, claimed that there has been a huge increase in the number of cases registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Since PM Modi came to power in 2014, cases have been arbitrarily filed by central agencies against leaders of opposition parties.

Citing statistics, Singhvi said that the ED registered 6 times more cases in the last seven years than in the previous decade. But the conviction rate in these cases was only 23 per cent. He also alleged that 95 per cent of the ED and CBI cases were against opposition leaders across the country and this was a clear sign of political vendetta and bias.

However, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed doubts on the validity and feasibility of the petition. He asked Singhvi whether he was seeking immunity for opposition parties from investigation and prosecution, and whether they had any special rights as citizens.

Singhvi clarified that he was not seeking any blanket protection or immunity for opposition leaders, but only fair application of the law. He said that the government is misusing its agencies to weaken and demoralize the opposition and this is detrimental to democracy and the rule of law.

The Chief Justice did not agree with Singhvi's arguments and said that the petition was essentially a plea for politicians. Justice Chandrachud said the petition has not taken into account the rights and interests of other citizens, who may be affected by corruption or criminality.

He said that the Supreme Court could not lay down general guidelines or principles just for politicians, and that it would be more appropriate to bring individual cases before the court. He also suggested that Singhvi could raise his concerns in Parliament.