Is Arvind Kejriwal Using the Punjab Police for Political Vendetta Against the BJP?
The latest FIRs against Sandeep Pathak have once again brought Punjab Police into the center of a political storm. What might appear on the surface as routine legal action is increasingly being viewed through a political lens. The question that naturally follows is whether these cases are isolated incidents based purely on law and evidence, or whether they form part of a broader pattern where policing decisions align closely with political interests.
This is not the first time such concerns have surfaced. Over the past few years, multiple instances have raised eyebrows about how and when Punjab Police has acted in cases involving opposition leaders, particularly those associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Each case, taken individually, may have its own legal justification. But when viewed collectively, they begin to form a pattern that deserves scrutiny.
The Bagga Case: When Policing Crossed State Boundaries
The episode involving Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga remains one of the most striking examples. Punjab Police reached Delhi to arrest a political leader over alleged remarks, without the kind of coordination that such inter-state actions typically require. What followed was an unprecedented situation where Haryana Police intervened, and Delhi Police registered a counter-case.
This was no longer a simple FIR or arrest. It turned into a multi-state confrontation, raising a fundamental question: was this purely a legal action, or was it driven by political urgency?
The Atishi Video FIR: Where Political Speech Meets Criminal Law
Another case that adds to this debate is the FIR registered after a viral video of Atishi was circulated online. Kapil Mishra was among those booked for sharing the clip, which the Aam Aadmi Party claimed was doctored.
While the authenticity of the video is a matter for investigation, the speed and selectivity of police action raised concerns. In a political environment where parties routinely attack each other through speeches and social media, the use of criminal law against those amplifying content creates a chilling effect. It raises the question of whether similar standards are applied uniformly across political lines.
A Pattern of FIRs and Detentions
Beyond high-profile cases, there have been repeated instances where BJP leaders and workers have faced FIRs or detentions during protests, campaigns, or administrative disputes. Names such as Sushil Rinku, Sheetal Angural, and KD Bhandari have surfaced in different contexts involving police action.
Individually, these may be explained as law-and-order measures. But collectively, they contribute to a perception that opposition activity in Punjab is being met with a disproportionately strong legal response. The fact that many such cases either result in quick bail or do not lead to prolonged prosecution further fuels the argument that the process itself may be the punishment.
The Question of Political Influence
Punjab has its own elected government, but the political influence of Arvind Kejriwal over the Aam Aadmi Party’s broader strategy is well acknowledged. This naturally leads to a deeper question: who is shaping the priorities of law enforcement in politically sensitive cases?
Even if every FIR is legally valid, the perception of selective enforcement can be just as damaging. Police institutions derive their credibility not just from legality, but from neutrality. Once that neutrality is questioned, every action begins to carry political overtones.
A Larger Democratic Concern
This is not an issue unique to one party or one state. Across India, there have been allegations from all sides about the misuse of police and investigative agencies. However, the Punjab cases stand out because of their timing, frequency, and in some instances, their cross-border implications.
If opposition leaders begin to anticipate legal action as a consequence of political activity, it alters the nature of democratic competition. Debate risks being replaced by deterrence.
The core issue is not whether any single FIR is justified. It is whether a pattern exists that suggests the use of state machinery for political purposes. That question does not have an easy answer, but it is one that cannot be ignored. In a democracy, the line between governance and political strategy must remain clear. When that line begins to blur, it is not just the opposition that is affected, but the credibility of institutions themselves.
