Recent events surrounding the bail granted to Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), have raised serious concerns about the independence of India’s judiciary, particularly in light of the perceived breach of the judiciary’s neutrality by the executive. The timing of Kejriwal’s bail, which followed a controversial meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, has fueled speculations of a covert alliance between the executive and judiciary—an assertion that, if true, carries grave implications for the upcoming elections in poll-bound states.
The Controversial Meeting
On the eve of Arvind Kejriwal’s court hearing, Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with CJI Chandrachud raised eyebrows across political circles. While such interactions are not unusual in the broader framework of governance, the timing has led to severe criticism, particularly from opposition parties and independent observers. The meeting was held behind closed doors at the CJI’s residence, and no official agenda or minutes were made public. Critics argue that this meeting violates the principle of separation of powers and breaches the judiciary’s mandate to remain apolitical, especially when elections are looming in states like Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
The model code of conduct, although typically enforced for political candidates and parties during elections, serves as a guiding principle for ensuring that the judiciary and executive do not collaborate to influence outcomes. Given the highly sensitive political climate in India, the perception of even a remote bias can have a ripple effect on public trust in democratic institutions.
Supreme Court Criticism of the CBI
In the lead-up to the bail hearing, the Supreme Court issued a scathing critique of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had been instrumental in pursuing charges against Kejriwal. The Court questioned the integrity and motivations of the CBI, indicating that the investigative agency’s case against the Delhi CM was built on weak and politically motivated grounds. This criticism by the judiciary brought to light concerns over how federal investigative bodies are being used for political purposes. It is evident that the CBI, once respected for its neutrality, has come under increasing scrutiny for acting under the influence of the ruling government.
Prime Minister Modi’s actions in this regard have drawn sharp criticism. His willingness to compromise the sanctity of federal organizations like the CBI for political expediency showcases the dangerous erosion of institutional independence under his leadership. Despite holding the highest office in the country, Modi has seemingly sacrificed the neutrality of these bodies for short-term electoral gains—a shameful act for a Prime Minister entrusted with upholding democratic norms and the impartiality of India’s institutions.
The Impact of Kejriwal’s Bail on Poll-Bound States
Kejriwal’s incarceration had, for a brief period, opened a political vacuum in key poll-bound states such as Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir. The Congress, which was already gaining momentum in these regions due to anti-incumbency sentiments against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), found an opportunity to consolidate the opposition vote. However, with Kejriwal’s release, the dynamics of these elections are set to change dramatically.
In states like Haryana, the opposition vote bank is now likely to be split between the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Congress had been positioning itself as the primary alternative to the BJP, banking on dissatisfaction over issues such as unemployment, farmer distress, and inflation. However, AAP’s resurgence following Kejriwal’s bail adds a third dimension to the electoral contest, thereby creating a triangular fight. This benefits the BJP, as the division of anti-BJP votes between Congress and AAP could allow the ruling party to retain seats with a plurality rather than a majority.
The BJP’s Struggles in Poll-Bound States
Despite the potential benefit from a divided opposition, the BJP is not on solid ground in either Haryana or J&K. In Haryana, the party’s coalition with Dushyant Chautala’s Jannayak Janta Party (JJP) has shown cracks, especially after the prolonged farmer protests, where the BJP faced significant opposition. Public anger, especially in rural areas, remains high, and Congress has been capitalizing on this discontent with promises of agricultural reform and economic relief. AAP, with its governance model in Delhi, has also been gaining traction, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas. However, a divided opposition is exactly what the BJP needs to maintain its foothold.
In Jammu & Kashmir, where elections are long overdue, the situation is even more complex. The abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state have left the BJP struggling to gain popular support. Political instability, security concerns, and the growing call for autonomy have turned public sentiment against the BJP-led central government. Local parties, particularly the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, are expected to gain ground in these elections. However, if the opposition remains fragmented and fails to unite, the BJP could once again find itself in a favourable position.
Allegations of a Nexus Between the CJI and PM Modi
Given these political realities, the alleged meeting between PM Modi and CJI Chandrachud has sparked outrage among opposition leaders and activists. The suggestion that the judiciary, particularly the office of the Chief Justice, may be influenced by the executive to manipulate political outcomes is deeply troubling. If Kejriwal’s bail was, in any way, influenced by this alleged meeting, it could indicate a troubling erosion of judicial independence in India, a cornerstone of the country’s democracy.
The timing of Arvind Kejriwal’s bail and the surrounding circumstances have raised valid questions about the transparency and independence of India’s judiciary. In poll-bound states like Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir, the political landscape is now set for a three-way contest between BJP, Congress, and AAP, which will likely benefit the ruling BJP by dividing opposition votes. While it is important not to jump to conclusions, the allegations of a judiciary-executive nexus, if substantiated, would mark a dangerous precedent for Indian democracy. The Supreme Court’s criticism of the CBI and the politicization of federal organizations for electoral advantage highlight a deeper crisis in India’s democratic institutions. It remains to be seen how these developments will impact the polls and whether the opposition can strategically overcome these challenges.
Now the BIG Question would be – What if the AAP decides to go with the Congress and INDI Alliance in states like Haryana? What if the so-called Masterstroke fails ? Would the Failed Political Stunt at the cost of the Sanctity of Federal Agencies benefit BJP or harm it further?
