A Delhi court said on Wednesday that extensive election campaigning and meetings done by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal during the recently concluded Lok Sabha polls shows that he is not suffering from any serious or life-threatening ailments and he is not entitled to interim bail under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Wednesday denied interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, citing that his extensive election campaigning and meetings during the recently concluded Lok Sabha polls indicate he is not suffering from any serious or life-threatening ailments. The court ruled that under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Kejriwal is not entitled to interim bail.
Special Judge (PC Act) Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court noted that diabetes, including type-2 diabetes, is not a severe condition warranting the relief of interim bail. She stated,
“Diabetes or even type-2 Diabetes cannot be said to be so serious an ailment so as to entitle him to the relief claimed. Further, the extensive campaigning tours and related meetings/events undertaken by Arvind Kejriwal as highlighted during the course of arguments also indicate that he does not appear to be suffering from any serious or ‘life threatening’ ailment so as to entitle him to the beneficial provision as contained in proviso to Section 45 PMLA.”
Judge Baweja made this observation while denying Kejriwal’s interim bail plea. She emphasized that the Delhi Chief Minister is seeking bail for the diagnosis of an “anticipated ailment” and for conducting tests to determine whether high ketone levels or stated weight loss could have caused Diabetic Ketoacidosis.
The Court maintained that such tests could be conducted while he remains in custody.
Additionally, the Court reinstated the AIIMS medical board previously constituted to examine Kejriwal and conduct the necessary medical tests within three days. The Court ordered,
“Upon receipt of the Test Reports, the Medical Board shall prescribe the further necessary treatment as may be required and the Jail Authorities shall ensure that the treatment so prescribed by the Medical Board is provided to the Applicant forthwith, under intimation to this court.”
Senior Advocate N Hariharan and advocate Vivek Jain represented Arvind Kejriwal. On behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, and Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared.
The decision by the Delhi court to deny interim bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the context of the Delhi excise policy case is significant for several reasons:
- Legal Precedent and Interpretation: The court’s interpretation of health conditions, specifically diabetes, in the context of granting bail under the PMLA, sets a precedent. The judge’s observation that diabetes, including type-2 diabetes, is not a severe enough condition to warrant interim bail underlines a strict interpretation of the law. This may influence future cases where health conditions are cited as reasons for bail.
- Judicial Scrutiny of Political Figures: The court’s decision indicates a high level of scrutiny for political figures involved in legal proceedings. The emphasis on Kejriwal’s active participation in election campaigns and meetings suggests that the judiciary is keen to ensure that claims for bail are substantiated by clear evidence of necessity, rather than being influenced by political status or activities.
- Medical Provisions for Incarcerated Individuals: The decision to reinstate the AIIMS medical board to conduct necessary tests while Kejriwal is in custody highlights the court’s effort to balance legal obligations with humane considerations. Ensuring that health concerns are addressed appropriately within the framework of incarceration is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial and correctional systems.
- Public Perception and Accountability: Given Kejriwal’s high-profile position, the court’s decision is likely to be closely scrutinized by the public and media. The detailed reasoning provided by the judge, including the rejection of the argument about the seriousness of diabetes, aims to ensure transparency and uphold public trust in the judicial process.
- Enforcement Directorate’s Role: The strong opposition by the ED to Kejriwal’s bail plea underscores the agency’s commitment to pursuing cases of alleged financial misconduct rigorously. This highlights the broader implications for accountability and the fight against corruption, especially involving significant political figures.
- Political Ramifications: For Kejriwal and the AAP, this legal battle could have substantial political implications. The allegations of misusing funds for electoral campaigns are serious and could affect the party’s image and electoral prospects. The court’s decision to deny bail adds a layer of complexity to Kejriwal’s political strategy and public perception.
In summary, the court’s decision reflects a stringent adherence to legal principles, balanced with provisions for medical care, while also highlighting the importance of accountability for political leaders. This case serves as a critical touchpoint for the intersection of law, health, and politics in India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Delhi Excise Policy Scam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
