5 min readMar 4, 2026 05:36 AM IST
First published on: Mar 3, 2026 at 06:05 AM IST
The case against AAP leaders didn’t stand the court’s scrutiny. But that doesn’t matter because the damage has already been done. Both Manish Sisodia and Arvind Kejriwal spent considerable time behind bars, having had difficulty obtaining bail. Most importantly, their image was sufficiently tarnished and the party pushed to the wall. AAP lost the Delhi Assembly election because of anti-incumbency and its many mistakes, but can we ignore the role of the loud accusations and court cases as contributory factors?
Many may not find it easy to be sympathetic toward AAP and yet, it would be a folly not to read the subtext of the drama. The current outcome is, in a sense, irrelevant and surreal. The purpose behind the court case has been served.
Kejriwal was not the only CM to be arrested. Hemant Soren followed him to jail. Nor is AAP the only party to suffer. The BSP has gone quiet; Congress finds it tough to face the slew of court cases against its leaders. What happens to such cases is secondary. They showcase the ease with which the ruling party at the Centre is wielding the stick to undermine the Opposition. Court cases are playing a crucial role in the fortunes of parties. So, legal niceties apart, the fundamental question such episodes force us to consider is this: How free and fair is political competition?
Neutral cynics would draw attention to the fact that political competition is never really free and fair — the rich and socially powerful always have an advantage. It is not easy to form a new political party and get enough space in the political arena. These criticisms are indeed true. But what one is encountering in this instance is the misuse of process. This argument will undoubtedly activate the “what about” industry, pointing out the many misdeeds of other parties when they have been in power. Their sins notwithstanding, what we witness now is a qualitatively different level at which the unfairness of the process vitiates competitive politics. Most non-BJP parties have been at the receiving end of this unfairness, but curiously, they seem to be too unconcerned to think about it collectively.
Multiple mechanisms are developed to neutralise as many impediments to fair competition as possible. The term “free and fair” is not only relevant for a formal conduct of elections, it is central to the existence of multi-party competition. The level playing field is never a given. Democracies try to make sure that the formal terrain is a level playing field.
For instance, money will always flow only to certain players in the field, but we can at least ensure that all players have an opportunity to mobilise resources and that giving money to a particular party will not be held against the donor. But what happens if financial support for a particular party will be noted and discouraged? What happens when only one party attracts huge resources and there is a possible quid pro quo? The liquidation of fairness in political competition has ensued. In India, political finance might be identified as the perennial issue producing unfairness of competition. But increasingly, we are witnessing a more systematic mechanism of ensuring unfair competition, coupled with the complete absence of even a fig leaf of a neutral umpire. If the electoral bonds scheme was a crowning instance of systemic unfairness, the ruling against it shows the limitation of the system of the neutral umpire — it came so late that by then the damage was already done. The refusal to stay that scheme and halt the damage allowed unfairness to consolidate. It also sent out a message that there will be no red cards shown.
Showing red cards is the job of neutral umpires. But be it appointments of election commissioners or the legality of the Special Intensive Revision, the refusal to stay these suggests that the system of red cards is disappearing fast.
Therefore, the entire episode involving AAP leaders needs to be understood in the context of creeping unfairness. A quick glance at cases of corruption initiated against opposition leaders will show how unfair the balance currently is. The withdrawal of cases after the accused join the ruling party is more direct evidence of that unfairness. Consistently, we also notice that beyond mild-mannered — and even awe-filled — commentary, the media has remained silent, if not indulgent, about this unfairness. To put it mildly, unfairness is hidden from the public, producing the impression that electoral defeats are due only to a lack of popular support.
Recently, the DMK has taken the lead in reopening the debate on Centre-state relations. But along with the debate over the “reset” of federalism, there is an urgent need for a reset of democratic and competitive politics itself. India’s polity and its institutional culture are moving in the direction of deep discomfort with the idea of an opposition. That discomfort leads the ruling party to weaponise investigating agencies and seek the silent complicity of neutral umpires. Perhaps it would be good if the ruling party realises that petty gimmicks to crush the Opposition manifest not its strength but an ambition to impose a closure on the idea of opposition itself. Diminishing the Opposition by non-electoral means is only a step away from losing even the formal framework of competitive politics.
The writer, based in Pune, taught Political Science
This argument will undoubtedly activate the ‘what about’ industry, pointing out the misdeeds of other parties when in power. Their sins notwithstanding, what we witness now is a qualitatively different level. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar) 
Share
