The Enforcement Directorate (ED), a central agency that investigates economic offences, has been conducting raids and issuing summons to several opposition leaders in Rajasthan and West Bengal, ahead of the assembly elections in these states. The ED's actions have drawn sharp criticism from the opposition parties, who have accused the BJP-led central government of misusing the agency to harass and intimidate its political rivals.
On October 26, the ED summoned Vaibhav Gehlot, son of Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot, in a foreign exchange violation case related to a hospitality group⁴. The same day, the ED also raided the premises of Rajasthan Congress president Govind Singh Dotasra and party candidate from Mahua Assembly seat in connection with a money laundering probe into an alleged exam paper leak case³. Ashok Gehlot slammed the ED's move as a "joke" and said that the BJP was resorting to taking action in old cases because it was convinced of losing the elections in Rajasthan.
On the same day, the ED also raided the residences of West Bengal Food and Supplies Minister Jyotipriya Mallick and others in connection with its probe into an alleged multi-crore ration distribution scam⁹. Mallick is a close aide of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who is facing a tough challenge from the BJP in the upcoming polls. Banerjee lashed out at the BJP-led central government and termed the raids by the ED against opposition leaders as a "dirty political game"⁹. She also charged that the BJP was attempting to change the country's history by taking a series of ill-conceived decisions, such as demonetisation and GST
The ED's raids on opposition leaders are not new. The agency has been investigating several cases involving prominent opposition figures, such as former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, former Karnataka Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy, former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, and others. The opposition parties have alleged that the ED is acting as a "caged parrot" of the central government and is being used to settle political scores.
The ED, however, has maintained that it is acting independently and professionally, and that its investigations are based on evidence and law. The agency has also claimed that it is not influenced by any external factors or pressures, and that it is performing its statutory duties without fear or favour.
The ED's role and functioning have been a matter of debate and controversy for a long time. The agency was established in 1956 under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), which was later replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) in 1999. The ED also derives its powers from the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which was enacted in 2002. The ED is responsible for enforcing these laws and combating money laundering, black money, hawala transactions, cross-border crimes, and other economic offences.
However, the ED has also faced criticism for its lack of autonomy, accountability, and transparency. The agency is under the administrative control of the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, which is headed by a minister who belongs to the ruling party at the centre. The ED does not have a separate statute or an independent oversight mechanism to ensure its impartiality and integrity. The agency also does not have a regular director or a fixed tenure for its officers, which makes it vulnerable to political interference and transfers.
The ED's actions have also raised questions about its adherence to due process and human rights. The agency has been accused of violating the principles of natural justice, presumption of innocence, fair trial, and bail as a right. The agency has also been accused of using coercive methods, such as prolonged detention, custodial interrogation, attachment of assets, freezing of bank accounts, and media leaks, to extract confessions and implicate accused persons. The agency has also been accused of selectively targeting certain individuals or groups based on their political affiliation or ideology.
The ED's role and functioning need to be reformed and strengthened to ensure that it serves as an effective instrument of law enforcement and justice delivery. The agency needs to be insulated from political influence and vested interests, and be made accountable to Parliament and the judiciary. The agency also needs to follow the rule of law and respect the rights and dignity of the accused persons. The agency also needs to adopt a professional and transparent approach to its investigations and prosecutions, and avoid any bias or prejudice.
The ED's crackdown on opposition leaders may have serious implications for India's democracy and federalism. The ED's actions may undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the agency as well as the central government. The ED's actions may also create a climate of fear and intimidation among the opposition parties and the public, and hamper their participation in the electoral process. The ED's actions may also erode the trust and cooperation between the centre and the states, and affect the governance and development of the country. The ED's actions need to be scrutinised and questioned by the media, the civil society, and the courts, to ensure that they are not motivated by political vendetta or ulterior motives..