 |
|
Amid claims of special treatment and counter-arguments from lawyers, the Supreme Court clarified that it had not made any exception while granting interim bail to AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi excise policy case.
The court emphasized that criticism of its judgment was welcome, but it also stressed the importance of adhering to its order, including Kejriwal's obligation to surrender on June 2nd.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) objected to Kejriwal's petition, arguing that it violated the conditions of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court, however, maintained that it could intervene if there was a violation of arrest conditions.
The bench posed questions to the ED regarding Kejriwal's contention that beneficial witness statements were ignored during his arrest. The ED responded that the investigating officer had to weigh the evidence and form reasons for arrest.
The ED also presented evidence of Kejriwal allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 100 crore, which went to AAP's Goa election expenses. They claimed that there was direct evidence of his stay in a 7-star hotel being partly funded by an accused who received a portion of the bribe.
The court adjourned the hearing to continue examining the ED's objections to Kejriwal's petition.
Kejriwal's interim bail has generated significant discussion, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah expressing concerns about preferential treatment.
The Supreme Court's stance on criticism of its judgment highlights the importance of judicial accountability while maintaining the authority of its rulings.
The ongoing legal proceedings will determine the outcome of Kejriwal's case and shed light on the allegations against him.
The case is a reminder of the complexities of India's legal system and the challenges faced by both the accused and the prosecution in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.
Source: After Shah remark on Kejriwal interim bail, SC says made no exception, criticism welcome