Ruling Party Lodging Criminal Cases Against Opposition Leaders A 'Disturbing Feature' Of Indian Politics: AP High Court

The registration of criminal cases against opposition leaders by ruling party governments, and vice versa, has become a disturbing feature of Indian politics, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed while quashing an FIR against Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and former Minister Ponguru Narayana in Amravati Land Pooling case. The court held that the FIR was vitiated by mala fides and political vendetta. It underscored that elected governments must be free to make policy decisions, including decisions that are innovative, controversial or even incorrect, without the fear of criminal prosecution merely because a subsequent government disagrees with those policies.The judgment dated July 15 was delivered by Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao on petitions filed by Naidu and Narayana seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them. Naidu and Narayana of Telugu Desam Party were arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in connection with allegations arising from the Government's land pooling policy for Amaravati. The allegations centred on a Government Order that made changes concerning assigned lands and lands held by encroachers under the land pooling scheme. The preliminary enquiry alleged that these changes were contrary to the statutory restrictions imposed on the transfer and alienation of assigned lands under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and were intended to make certain individuals eligible for benefits under the land pooling scheme.At the time of the alleged acts, Naidu who is presently the CM, was also the CM of the Andhra Pradesh in 2014 when acquisition took place; Narayana was the Minister for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. By the time the complaint was lodged in 2021, they had ceased to hold those offices with YSR Congress Party coming to power.The Court observed:"One of the most critical aspects of this case is the alleged political motivation behind the FIR. The registration of criminal cases against opposition leaders by ruling party governments, and vice versa, has become a disturbing feature of Indian politics. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed concern about the weaponization of criminal law for political purposes. In the present case, the pattern is clear: the complaint was filed by an MLA of the ruling party, it targeted the former (present) Chief Minister and a former (present) Cabinet Minister of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, it was registered two years after the change of Government, and it was being investigated by the CID, which functions directly under the State Government"The dispute arose from the land pooling scheme implemented for the development of Amaravati as the new capital city of Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (APCRDA Act).Against this backdrop, the 173-page judgment examined whether governmental policy decisions taken in the exercise of statutory and constitutional authority could be subjected to criminal prosecution merely because a subsequent Government disagreed with those decisions, particularly where allegations of political motivation were raised in relation to the FIR.The petitioners contended that the FIR was a result of political retribution following the change in Government and sought to criminalise acts undertaken in the exercise of governmental and rule-making functions.The Court noted that the complaint was lodged by an MLA of the ruling party against the petitioners nearly two years after the change of Government, while the investigation was conducted by the CID, which functions directly under the State Government. It also noted that none of the farmers whose assigned lands were allegedly encroached upon or unlawfully appropriated had themselves approached the law enforcement authorities with any grievance or complaint.The High Court held that its constitutional duty was to prevent criminal process from degenerating into an instrument of political persecution and personal vendetta. It held:"The salutary and paramount constitutional duty of the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, [is] to prevent the criminal process from degenerating into an instrument of political persecution and personal vendetta."The Court further held that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners and sought to characterise official acts carried out under constitutional and statutory authority as criminal offences. It also found an express statutory bar to prosecution and held that the proceedings were manifestly mala fide, having been instituted with an ulterior motive of political persecution and delegitimisation of the previous Government.The Court drew a distinction between a governmental decision that is wrong or irregular, which may be challenged in civil or constitutional proceedings, and a governmental decision that is criminal and therefore amenable to prosecution. It held that the materials...

Ruling Party Lodging Criminal Cases Against Opposition Leaders A 'Disturbing Feature' Of Indian Politics: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

Ruling Party Lodging Criminal Cases Against Opposition Leaders A 'Disturbing Feature' Of Indian Politics: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers