After much deliberation on the arguments made by Arvind Kejriwal’s legal team and those representing the Enforcement Directorate, the Supreme Court Today (May 7th) deferred its order on the Delhi chief minister’s interim bail plea. The court is likely to hear the matter day on Thursday.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: After extensive deliberations between the legal teams of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Supreme Court today deferred its decision on Kejriwal’s interim bail plea. The matter is now expected to be taken up again on Thursday.
The Supreme Court was considering granting Kejriwal interim bail in light of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal is currently in custody due to an excise policy-linked money laundering case. The court noted that Kejriwal does not have a history of habitual offenses while considering the plea for interim bail. Kejriwal is currently incarcerated in Delhi’s Tihar Jail on charges related to the now-discontinued liquor excise policy.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta took up the plea of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader as their first matter. Senior Supreme Court lawyer and Congress leader AM Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the ED had no basis to arrest him on March 21. Singhvi also referred to cases of other politicians like Narayan Rane, Chandrababu Naidu, and Shiv Shankar Das, who all received bail under normal conditions with restrictions on press interviews or public comments.
Justice Datta noted that if there were no elections happening, the question of interim bail might not have arisen. During the deliberations, Justice Khanna expressed reservations, saying,
“If Kejriwal is released on interim bail and allowed to participate in elections, and he performs his official duties, that might have ‘cascading effects.’ What about signing files and attending office? If you go to office, it may not be correct.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, argued that the court should clarify Kejriwal’s role before allowing him to proceed on interim bail. Justice Khanna stated,
“When we can pass a final order, we can always pass an interim order.”
Singhvi countered SG Mehta’s argument, stating that the administration does not stop functioning in the absence of a chief minister’s signature.
In the proceedings, Justice Khanna responded to SG Mehta’s question about setting a different example for a chief minister by saying,
“He is elected CM of Delhi. There are elections… These are extraordinary circumstances. He’s not a habitual [offender].”
According to LiveLaw, SG Mehta opposed any interim bail to Kejriwal, stating,
“There can’t be any deviation only because he is a CM. Are we carving out an exception for politicians? Would campaigning for elections be more important?”
However, Justice Khanna clarified that the election is an entirely different scenario, noting,
“Elections are held once in five years… We certainly do not want that politicians who are involved in crimes be treated differently.”
SG Mehta argued that since Kejriwal is in jail, he will have to forego his rights, whether as an MLA or a political leader. He hinted that Kejriwal’s arrest might have been avoided if he had cooperated.
Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 and is currently lodged in Tihar Jail under judicial custody. On May 3, the top court said it might consider granting him interim bail in view of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
The Supreme Court had issued a notice to the ED on April 15 and sought its response to Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest. On April 9, the Delhi High Court upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, saying there was no illegality and the ED was left with “little option” after he skipped repeated summonses and refused to join the investigation.
The case relates to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government’s now-scrapped excise policy for 2021-22.
EARLIER TODAY IN APEX COURT
The Supreme Court earlier today (may 7th) stated that if jailed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is granted interim bail, he will not be allowed to perform official duties as it “may have a cascading effect”.
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta made this remark while hearing Kejriwal’s petition challenging his March 21 arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case.
“We have heard the parties on interim bail, and we will lay down what to do. At 2 pm, we will hear for half an hour,”
-the bench said.
During the hearing, the court asked senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, whether Kejriwal would attend office, sign files, and “give directions to others” if released on interim bail. Singhvi responded,
“He won’t be dealing with the excise case. He is a sitting Chief Minister.”
The bench then clarified,
“We are very clear that we don’t want you to be performing official duties since it may have a cascading effect. We do not want interference at all in the work of the government. It’s your wish that you want to continue as Chief Minister. Today, it is not a question of legality but propriety. We are considering the interim bail just because of elections, else we wouldn’t have considered it at all.”
The Supreme Court also told the ED that it would hear the bail arguments because Kejriwal is
“the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi and needs to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections.”
The bench acknowledged,
“This is an extraordinary situation. It is not like he is a habitual offender. Elections happen once in five years. It’s not like harvesting a crop that will happen every four to six months. We need to consider on priority whether he should be released in the interim.”
However, the ED opposed the court’s suggestion, stating that it would set a “wrong precedent.” The agency argued,
“A politician has no special rights as compared to normal citizens. Should all MPs and MLAs facing prosecution be released on bail?”
Singhvi was asked to respond to the issues raised by the ED. These issues included,
“Can a politician get special treatment compared to a common man? There are 5,000 facing prosecution. What if all of them say they want to campaign? Nine summons over six months? The ED cannot be blamed for choosing time; can interim bail be granted as they haven’t yet gone into evidence?”
The court also questioned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, about the delay in questioning and probing Kejriwal. Raju explained,
“When we began the investigation, our investigation was not directly against him (Kejriwal). His role came up during the investigation. That’s why, in the beginning, not a single question was put regarding him. The investigation was not focused on him.”
The bench replied,
“This is an unusual case… Why did you take so long, and why were the questions not asked? We take it that no question was asked about him. The only issue was why were you delaying?”
The Additional Solicitor General said that if he
“started asking about Kejriwal at the outset, it would have been called malafide”.
He further stated,
“It takes time to understand. We can’t put it overnight. Things have to be confirmed.”
Tuesday’s hearing came after the Supreme Court indicated on May 3 that it might grant interim bail to Kejriwal due to the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal, currently lodged in Tihar Jail, approached the Supreme Court a day after his petition challenging his arrest and remand was rejected by the Delhi High Court on April 9.
The AAP national convenor’s petition stated that his arrest was made “in a motivated manner” and was based on subsequent, contradictory, and “highly belated statements of co-accused” who have now turned approvers. The petition also sought his release and to declare the arrest “illegal.”
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
