Table of Contents
Introduction
This article published in the editorial section of The Hindu Newspaper examines two significant legal observations made by the Supreme Court of India regarding the bail petitions of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. These observations raise important questions about the legal boundaries involving political parties and the distinction between policy-making and criminality.
Article Explanation
1. Involving Political Parties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):
The first observation comes from a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, which questioned whether the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), as a political entity, could be implicated in a money laundering case under the PMLA. This question arose during discussions on whether AAP should be considered an accused party in a case involving its leaders.
The legal debate centres around Section 70 of the PMLA, which typically applies to companies and associations of individuals engaged in business activities. According to this section, if an offence is committed by a company, every person in charge of it can be held liable. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) invoked this provision, arguing that a political party like AAP could be treated as an “association of individuals” under the law.
However, there is concern about whether this interpretation is appropriate. Political parties are fundamentally different from companies or business entities; their role is to mobilize people, contest elections, and form governments, not engage in commercial transactions. The article suggests that extending the PMLA to include political parties could lead to significant issues, particularly in a democratic system where such parties play a crucial role. This move could set a precedent that makes political parties vulnerable to legal actions under laws designed for financial crimes, potentially leading to political misuse of the law.
2. Distinguishing Policy Decisions from Criminality:
The second observation comes from another Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, during a bail hearing for Manish Sisodia. The Bench questioned the line between legitimate policy-making by a government and criminality, particularly when policies are framed by the cabinet.
In India’s parliamentary system, the cabinet, led by the Prime Minister at the national level or the Chief Minister at the state level, holds the ultimate authority to make policy decisions. These decisions can vary in quality, but they are political judgments rather than criminal acts. Historically, the judiciary has refrained from questioning the motives or correctness of such policies, recognizing that policy-making is within the purview of the elected government and is subject to political rather than legal accountability.
The article raises concerns that if ministers are held criminally liable for collective decisions made by the cabinet, it could disrupt the functioning of government. It argues that policy decisions, even if flawed, are political matters to be debated in the legislative arena and ultimately judged by the electorate. Criminalizing these decisions could undermine the principle that policy-making is distinct from criminal conduct and could lead to a scenario where government officials are unfairly targeted for decisions made in good faith.
Conclusion:
The article calls for the Supreme Court to provide clear guidance on these issues. Bringing political parties under the PMLA and holding individual ministers criminally accountable for cabinet decisions could have significant implications for India’s democratic system. Such actions could expose political parties to legal vulnerabilities and interfere with the effective functioning of government. The Supreme Court’s clarification is essential to prevent potential misuse of the law and to maintain the delicate balance between legal accountability and democratic governance.
This article examines two significant legal observations made by the Supreme Court of India regarding the bail petitions of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. These observations raise important questions about the legal boundaries involving political parties and the distinction between policy-making and criminality.
Join our telegram channel for regular updates of The Hindu Epaper Editorial Explanation-https://t.me/Thehindueditorialexplanation
The Hindu Epaper Editorial Explanation given by Hello Student is only a supplementary reading to the original article to make things easier for the students.
In conclusion, preparing for exams in India can be a daunting task, but with the right strategies and resources, success is within reach. Remember, consistent study habits, effective time management, and a positive mindset are key to overcoming any academic challenge. Utilize the tips and techniques shared in this post to enhance your preparation and boost your confidence. Stay focused, stay motivated, and don’t forget to take care of your well-being. With dedication and perseverance, you can achieve your academic goals and pave the way for a bright future. Good luck!
The Editorial Page of The Hindu is an essential reading for all the students aspiring for UPSC, SSC, PCS, Judiciary etc or any other competitive government exams.
This may also be useful for exams like CUET UG and CUET PG, GATE, GMAT, GRE AND CAT
To read this article in Hindi –https://bhaarat.hellostudent.co.in/