[EXCLUSIVE] Chronology of Events: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal

Following is the chronology of events in the excise policy-linked corruption case, in which the Supreme Court Today (Sept 13) granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling on September 13, the Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the excise policy-linked corruption case. The legal battle has been ongoing, marked by a series of significant developments since 2021.

Here is a comprehensive overview of the events that unfolded

• November 2021: Delhi government introduces new excise policy.

• July 2022: Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena recommends CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the policy.

• August 2022: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) register cases in connection with the alleged irregularities.

• September 2022: The Delhi government scraps the excise policy.

• October 2023 to March 2024: The ED issues nine summonses to Kejriwal in connection with the money-laundering case.

• March 21, 2024: The Delhi High Court refuses to grant protection from arrest to Kejriwal on his petition challenging the summonses issued to him.

The ED arrests the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader shortly thereafter

• May 10: The Supreme Court grants interim bail to Kejriwal till June 1 to campaign in the Lok Sabha polls, says he will have to surrender and go back to jail on June 2.

• June 20: The trial court grants regular bail to Kejriwal.

• June 21: The ED moves the high court challenging the trial court’s bail order. The high court issues a notice on the agency’s plea, suspends the bail order until pronouncement on the issue of stay.

• June 25: The high court stays the bail granted to Kejriwal by the trial court in the money-laundering case.

• June 26: CBI formally arrests Kejriwal from jail in a corruption case related to the excise policy.

• May 17: Supreme Court reserves its verdict on Kejriwal’s plea challenging the legality of his arrest.

• July 12: Supreme Court grants interim bail to Kejriwal in money laundering case lodged by the ED in the alleged excise policy ‘scam’. But he will stay in the jail in the CBI case.

• July 17: Kejriwal challenges in Delhi High Court his arrest by the CBI in a corruption case stemming from the alleged excise policy scam.

• Aug 5 : Delhi High Court upholds Kejriwal’s arrest by CBI in the corruption case.

• Aug 12: Kejriwal moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC order upholding his arrest by the CBI in the corruption case.

• Aug 14: SC issues notice to CBI on plea by Kejriwal against his arrest in excise policy scam case.

• Sep 5: SC reserves order on Kejriwal’s pleas for bail, against arrest by CBI.

• Sep 11: Delhi court extends the judicial custody of Kejriwal till September 25 in excise scam case.

• Sep 13: SC grants bail to Kejriwal, says prolonged incarceration amounts to unjust deprivation of liberty.

This complex legal battle reflects the delicate balance between law enforcement agencies, judicial oversight, and political leadership in India. While the arrest and prolonged detention of a sitting Chief Minister like Arvind Kejriwal is unprecedented, it also raises questions about the politicization of investigative agencies.

Kejriwal’s supporters argue that the case is a politically motivated attempt to damage his reputation ahead of elections, while his detractors point to the seriousness of the allegations.

The Supreme Court’s final statement, “prolonged incarceration amounts to unjust deprivation of liberty,” is particularly noteworthy. It not only granted bail but also hinted at the broader issues of individual liberty in cases involving high-profile politicians.

While Kejriwal’s release has provided temporary respite, the ongoing investigations and future court proceedings will continue to be closely watched.

This case has exposed the complex dynamics between governance and accountability, raising concerns about the extent to which political figures can be subjected to legal scrutiny while still ensuring fair trials and protection from political vendetta.

The broader implications of the case will likely influence future political narratives in India, particularly in the context of anti-corruption policies and governance reform.

HEARING TODAY IN APEX COURT

The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the corruption case connected to the excise policy scam.

However, while Justice Surya Kant dismissed Kejriwal’s appeal regarding the legality of his arrest in the CBI case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan offered a dissenting opinion on the matter.

The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, outlined the key questions that were framed based on the arguments:

“Whether there was illegality in the arrest; Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail; and Whether the filing of a chargesheet constitutes a sufficient change in circumstance to refer the matter to the trial court.”

Justice Kant, while delivering the verdict in open court, remarked,

“No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their application recorded reasons as to why they deemed it necessary. There is no violation of S.41A(iii). We do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that CBI didn’t comply with S.41A CrPC.”

He further emphasized-

“CM Kejriwal’s arrest does not suffer from illegality.”

Regarding the completion of the trial, Justice Kant observed,

“Completion of trial is unlikely to end in the immediate future.”

As a result, the court concluded,

“The criminal appeal challenging the legality of the arrest, we have declined. As regards bail, we have allowed the appeal. The High Court order is set aside. We direct the appellant to be released on bail, with two sureties of Rs. 10 lakh each.”

Moreover, the Court imposed conditions, stating,

“Appellant will not make any public comment on the merits of the case. Conditions imposed in the ED matter shall apply in this case also. He shall fully cooperate with the trial court.”

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a member of the bench, expressed a separate opinion on the necessity and timing of the arrest, stating,

“I have a separate opinion, while concurring with the view of Justice Kant that the appellant should be released. CBI’s appearance raises more questions than it answers. It appears only after the Trial Court granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case that CBI became active and sought custody. It didn’t feel like a need to arrest for over 22 months. Such action raises serious question on arrest itself. A view may be taken….as far as grounds of arrest are concerned, these would not satisfy the necessity of arrest. The CBI can’t justify arrest and continue detention, citing evasive replies. Accused can’t be compelled to make an inculpatory statement.”

Justice Bhuyan further elaborated,

“I fail to understand the great urgency on part of the CBI to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case.”

He also emphasized that the CBI, being a premier investigative agency, must maintain the highest standards of fairness, remarking,

“It’s in the public interest that CBI must be seen to be above…efforts must be made to remove the perception that the investigation was not carried out fairly. Perception matters.”

Notably, the bench had reserved its order on September 5, in response to Kejriwal’s bail plea. Earlier, on August 14, the Court had declined to grant interim bail to Kejriwal in the excise policy corruption case. It also issued a notice to the CBI on the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Kejriwal against the Delhi High Court’s decision, which upheld his arrest by the investigative agency.

Prior to this, on August 5, the Delhi High Court had rejected Kejriwal’s interim bail request in the same case. The Court had reserved its judgment on July 29, and subsequently denied the request. Earlier, on July 17, the Court had reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest.

On July 2, the Court issued a notice to the CBI regarding Kejriwal’s challenge against his arrest, and a similar notice was issued again on July 5 after Kejriwal filed a bail plea in the same case.

Kejriwal was initially arrested by the CBI on June 26 while he was in judicial custody at Tihar Jail, as part of a separate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) related to the excise policy scam.

Following his arrest, he was placed on a 3-day CBI remand, as ordered by a trial court on June 26. This was later extended to a 14-day judicial custody period, which was set to end on July 12.

However, on July 12, the Supreme Court, while observing that “mere interrogation does not allow arrest,” granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the ED case related to the alleged Excise Policy Scam.

Here are some of the Supreme Court’s key quotes

• “Perception also matters and CBI must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot and must show it is an uncaged parrot. CBI should be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.”

• “No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their applciation recorded reasons as to why they deemed necessary. There is no violation of Section 41A (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,” said Justice Surya Kant.

• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, noted, “CBI did not feel the need to arrest him (Mr Kejriwal) even though he was interrogated in March 2023 and it was only after his ED arrest was stayed that CBI became active and sought custody of Mr Kejriwal, and thus felt no need of arrest for over 22 months. Such action by the CBI raises serious question on the timing of the arrest and such an arrest by CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted in ED case.”

• “Submission of additional solicitor general cannot be accepted that appellant has to first approach trial court for grant of bail. Process of trial should not end up becoming a punishment. Belated arrest by CBI is not justified.”

• “Regarding building a public narrative of a case… Arvind Kejriwal shall not make any public comments about this case and be present for all hearings before trial court unless exempted.”

CASE TITLE:
Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi Excise Policy Case

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES