Today (27th May): Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed a plea in the Supreme Court requesting a seven-day extension of his interim bail on medical grounds. Kejriwal, who has lost 7 kg since his arrest, cited high ketone levels and potential serious illness as reasons for needing additional time for medical tests.
NEW DELHI: Today (27th May): Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal filed a plea seeking a seven-day extension of his interim bail on medical grounds.
In his plea, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief mentioned that he has lost 7 kg since his arrest and has elevated ketone levels, which could indicate a serious illness. Kejriwal is seeking this extension to undergo medical tests.
Earlier, the Supreme Court, on May 10th, granted interim bail to jailed Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal until June 1 in the money laundering case registered against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta passed the order.
The bench has asked Kejriwal to surrender on June 2.
The bench said,
“Let us not draw any parallel. He was arrested in March and the arrest could have been before or after. Now, after 21 days, there won’t be any difference. On June 2, Arvind Kejriwal will surrender.”
Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kejriwal during the hearing, asked the court whether Kejriwal could get interim bail for June 5.
To this, Justice Khanna replied,
“No.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, told the court that Kejriwal should not speak about the case and surrender on the date specified.
Shadan Farasat, representing Kejriwal, expressed efforts to secure Kejriwal’s release from Tihar Jail today itself after the Supreme Court granted interim bail until June 1.
“The interim bail extends till June 1, with surrender on June 2. This was conveyed orally; we await the order upload on the Supreme Court website to ascertain further details. Our priority is to ensure Kejriwal’s release today,”
-stated Farasat.
Following the Supreme Court’s interim bail order, Kejriwal’s legal team will proceed to the trial court for the preparation and transmission of the release order to Tihar Jail authorities, according to sources. Kejriwal’s release from jail will be facilitated only upon receipt of the trial court’s release order, they added.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) strongly opposed the Supreme Court’s proposal to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently detained in connection with a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy. Kejriwal, who was arrested by the ED on March 21, is housed in Tihar Jail as the legal proceedings continue.
The Supreme Court, while reviewing Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest and subsequent remand by the ED, considered allowing him interim bail to participate in the campaigning for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. However, the court stipulated that if granted interim bail, Kejriwal would be barred from performing any official duties as Chief Minister.
This money laundering investigation is an extension of a 2022 case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), following a complaint by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena. Allegations suggest a conspiracy by AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, aimed at manipulating the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 to benefit specific liquor vendors.
During the legal proceedings on May 7, the Supreme Court hinted at possibly allowing Kejriwal interim bail, sparking discussions about the implications of such a decision, especially in light of the approaching elections. The ED, however, maintained that Kejriwal should not receive special treatment compared to other individuals facing criminal charges, simply because of his political status.
Kejriwal’s legal team argued that while the Chief Minister is not exempt from prosecution, his rights as a citizen should be respected equally with others. This argument was bolstered by the Supreme Court’s earlier inquiry into the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, suggesting a need for careful consideration of the political and legal nuances involved.
Background:
Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has challenged his arrest and remand by the ED in a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the framing of the Delhi excise policy for 2021-2022. The ED’s investigation stems from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022 based on a complaint filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena.
It is alleged that AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, conspired to create loopholes in the excise policy to favor certain liquor sellers. Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 and is currently in Tihar Jail.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal in Jail | SC to Decide on Interim Bail for Delhi CM on May 10
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, particularly in light of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in 2024. The court emphasized that it may consider granting interim bail due to the elections but clarified that no final decision had been made. The court urged both sides to be considerate and not make assumptions about the outcome. It also raised concerns about whether Kejriwal, as the Chief Minister, should be signing any files while in custody.
The court discussed the possibility of booking the AAP under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the potential liability of Kejriwal as the person in charge of the political party. The court stated that if the AAP is viewed as a juristic person or a company and accused, the principle of vicarious liability would apply, making Kejriwal potentially liable. However, Kejriwal’s counsel argued that Section 70 of the PMLA, which deals with “companies,” was not intended to cover political parties.
The court also deliberated on whether the ED is required to disclose the entire material collected during its investigation or only a part of it. The ED argued that recording all the material in writing would be impractical and burdensome for the investigating officers. The court sought clarification on the threshold for arresting an accused under the PMLA, noting that “reasons to believe” should go beyond mere suspicion
