Everyone is equal before the law, but politicians seek special treatment everywhere. Even if they are involved in any case, they are reluctant to undergo the normal procedures of the law. In recent times, the most frequent complaint from the opposition parties against the central investigative agencies is that the Centre is deliberately unleashing them against them. They also point to several cases to prove the allegation that the Centre is misusing agencies like the CBI and ED to suppress opposition voices. Fourteen opposition parties in the country have approached the Supreme Court with a demand to prohibit central agencies from hunting opposition leaders. But when the court was not ready to even consider the petition, the petitioners came forward to withdraw it.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reminded that political leaders are like any other citizens of the country and cannot claim special protection or treatment under the law. One law for the common man and another for the political elite is inconsistent with the concept of equal justice. If someone has a good idea that they are intentionally entrapping, they have the opportunity to approach the court and prove their innocence. How can it be said that no legal action should be taken against them just because they are politicians? Politicians should be prepared to obey the law and be bound by the law like everyone else. In a democratic country, everyone is equal before the law. When it is humbly accepted, the rule of law and democracy are strengthened.

The observations made by the Chief Justice on this point are very interesting. A political leader is basically a citizen of the country. Therefore, that person is bound to obey the laws of the country like any other citizen. Being a politician does not make you above the law. They have no right to say that the law does not apply to them. The petition mainly raised the complaint that the Centre is constantly hunting down opposition leaders using agencies like ED and CBI. The petition also demanded that the apex court issue guidelines on arrest, remand and bail by these agencies. The petitioners withdraw the petition when it was clarified that the court would not be able to issue a public order in the matter.

How can we blame the intervention of central agencies in corruption cases? In the vast majority of past and ongoing cases, sufficient grounds for investigation can be found. Because those involved in the case are influential, many may be escaping by using loopholes in the law. The level of punishment may also be lower for several reasons. By examining the timeline of many cases, the allegation that central agencies trap opposition leaders to settle personal feuds can be proven baseless. When the petition came before the bench chaired by the Chief Justice, one of the arguments raised by the counsel appearing for the opposition parties was that the petition was seeking justice for the fourteen parties who had secured 45 percent of the votes in the assembly elections. It is difficult to understand the logic of comparing corruption investigations on the basis of vote value.