Impact Of Political Interference On Criminal Justice Delivery
1. Introduction
Political interference refers to the improper influence exerted by political actors or entities on the criminal justice system, including law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the judiciary. This interference can:
Compromise investigations and evidence collection
Cause selective prosecution or immunity for political allies
Delay or obstruct trials
Undermine public trust in justice systems
2. Effects of Political Interference
Erosion of Rule of Law: Political influence can override legal norms.
Bias in Investigation: Agencies may be used as tools against political opponents.
Compromised Judicial Independence: Judges may face pressure or threats.
Selective Accountability: Some individuals escape punishment due to political protection.
Delayed Justice: Trials can be prolonged or stalled for political expediency.
Public Distrust: Citizens lose confidence in fairness and impartiality.
3. Landmark Cases Illustrating Political Interference
Case 1: In Re: Bhutto’s Assassination Case (2007) – Supreme Court of Pakistan
Facts:
The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto involved allegations of political cover-ups and interference in investigations.
Issue:
Ensuring impartial and transparent investigation free from political influence.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court took suo motu notice and ordered the formation of a judicial commission, demanding full cooperation from political and intelligence agencies.
Significance:
Demonstrated judiciary’s role in countering political interference in high-profile cases.
Case 2: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (1997) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Political leaders allegedly interfered in police investigations related to communal riots.
Issue:
Whether courts can intervene to restore independent investigations.
Ruling:
The Court held that judicial intervention is necessary to prevent misuse of law enforcement agencies by politicians, and ordered central agencies to take over investigations.
Significance:
Established precedent for courts acting as a check on politically motivated investigations.
Case 3: Khalid v. Government of Pakistan (2014) – Lahore High Court
Facts:
Khalid, a political activist, claimed arrest and prosecution were politically motivated to silence dissent.
Issue:
Protection of fundamental rights against politically influenced criminal proceedings.
Ruling:
The court quashed the FIR and ordered an inquiry into misuse of police power.
Significance:
Strengthened legal safeguards against politically motivated arrests and prosecutions.
Case 4: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (1993) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
This case addressed political pressure on the judiciary itself.
Issue:
Safeguarding judicial independence against executive interference.
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the independence of the judiciary as integral to democracy, limiting executive’s control over judicial appointments and functioning.
Significance:
Though broader in scope, this ruling is key to minimizing political interference in criminal justice delivery.
Case 5: Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (1994) – Supreme Court of Pakistan
Facts:
Environmental litigation where political and bureaucratic interests clashed with public rights.
Issue:
Judicial activism to uphold law in the face of political resistance.
Ruling:
The Court took a proactive role to enforce environmental laws despite political opposition.
Significance:
While not criminal justice, it illustrates judicial resistance to political interference in legal enforcement.
Case 6: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) – Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Allegations of misuse of police and investigative agencies to target political opponents.
Issue:
Judicial oversight of investigative agencies to prevent political misuse.
Ruling:
The Court issued guidelines for investigation and monitoring of agencies to ensure impartiality.
Significance:
Framework for judicial checks on political interference in criminal investigations.
4. Judicial Measures to Counter Political Interference
Appointment of Special Investigation Teams (SITs) free from political influence.
Judicial monitoring of investigations and trials.
Transfer of cases to impartial courts or jurisdictions.
Protection of whistleblowers and witnesses.
Stringent laws against misuse of power.
Transparency and accountability mechanisms.
5. Conclusion
Political interference severely compromises the criminal justice system’s ability to deliver fair and impartial justice. Courts worldwide have increasingly taken an active role in identifying, mitigating, and preventing such interference to uphold the rule of law and protect democratic values. However, sustained institutional reforms and vigilance are necessary to insulate justice delivery from political pressures.
RELATED Blog
comments