The Supreme Court made several key observations while addressing Arvind Kejriwal’s plea for interim bail. These included scrutinizing the evidence presented, assessing the gravity of the charges, considering Kejriwal’s past conduct, evaluating the likelihood of him absconding, and weighing the potential impact on the ongoing investigation.
NEW DELHI: Today (7th May): The Supreme Court recently deferred its order on the interim bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently lodged in Tihar Jail on charges related to an excise policy-linked money laundering case. While discussing the case, the apex court made several significant observations.
A two-judge bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta made the observations while hearing the jailed Chief Minister’s petition challenging his March 21 arrest by the Enforcement Directorate linked to the Delhi liquor policy case.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court:
- The Supreme Court noted that Kejriwal’s interim bail plea would not have been considered without the backdrop of ongoing elections. This implies that the court recognized the unique circumstances presented by elections in this case.
- The apex court expressed concerns about the potential consequences if Kejriwal were to be released on interim bail and allowed to participate in elections and perform official duties. It questioned how he would effectively handle crucial tasks such as signing files and attending the office while in custody.
- While acknowledging the extraordinary circumstances of being an elected chief minister during elections, the Supreme Court reiterated that politicians involved in crimes should not be treated differently. However, the court made it clear that Kejriwal is not considered a habitual offender.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that elections are a distinct event held once every five years and reiterated its stance against granting special treatment to politicians involved in criminal cases. The court highlighted the need for equal treatment under the law, irrespective of an individual’s political status.
- The Supreme Court clarified that its decision-making process was not based on whether the individual in question was a politician or not. The court highlighted that every individual may have special or exceptional circumstances that warrant consideration. It further clarified that the discussion primarily revolved around whether an exception was necessary in light of the ongoing elections. The court explicitly stated that its stance did not imply the need for a separate law tailored specifically for politicians.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal’s Defamation Case: Supreme Court Challenged Over Video Retweet
The Supreme Court told the Enforcement Directorate that it would hear arguments for an interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal as he is “the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi and needs to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections”. The top court said this was an “extraordinary case” and “it’s not like he is a habitual offender”.
READ ALSO: PIL Against Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest Not Maintainable: Delhi HC
The Supreme Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) “delay” in investigating a money laundering case connected to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The court has requested the ED produce case files before Kejriwal’s arrest and also those pertaining to Delhi’s former deputy chief minister, Manish Sisodia, who is also implicated in the case. Kejriwal has filed a plea challenging his arrest by the ED, and the court is currently hearing arguments on the matter.
Furthermore, Delhi court extended the judicial custody of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until May 20. The extension was granted by the Special Judge for CBI and ED, Kaveri Baweja, after Kejriwal appeared before the court via video conference following the expiration of his earlier custody.
The court also extended the judicial custody of co-accused Chanpreet Singh until May 20.
Background:
On April 15, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the ED in response to Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest. The Delhi High Court had previously upheld his arrest on April 9, stating that the ED had few alternatives after Kejriwal repeatedly evaded summonses and refused to cooperate with the investigation. The case revolves around allegations of corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government’s excise policy for the year 2021–22, which has now been repealed.
On March 21, Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the excise policy case. The case involves alleged irregularities and money laundering in the framing and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2022, which was subsequently scrapped. The ED has claimed that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is the primary beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the alleged liquor scam. It has also alleged Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the formulation of the excise policy.
According to the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate, Arvind Kejriwal is accused of conspiring and actively participating in the use and concealment of proceeds of crime. The ED’s case reveals Kejriwal’s involvement both in his personal capacity and as the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party.
The court dismissed Kejriwal’s challenge to the timing of his arrest, asserting that it should be examined based on the law and not about the electoral context. The absence of any mala fide intentions on the part of the ED rendered Kejriwal’s objection unsustainable.
