 |
|
Arvind Kejriwal's Bail: Supreme Court Defends Decision Amidst Criticism
The Supreme Court has maintained that its decision to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was not an exception. The court's statement came in response to criticism from the government, which argued that the decision was unfair.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, who granted bail to Kejriwal over the weekend, emphasized that they made their decision based on the merits of the case. They stated that elections are the lifeblood of democracy and that Kejriwal, as the head of a national party, deserved bail as he was not convicted of any crime and posed no threat to society.
The court's decision aligns with its long-standing view that bail should be the norm and imprisonment the exception. The bench had previously granted bail to TDP chief and former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in January and to Odisha BJP leader Siba Sankar Das in March. The judges cited both cases as precedents in their decision to grant bail to Kejriwal.
The court also declined to comment on political leaders' criticism of the decision. Union Home Minister Amit Shah had expressed concerns that the Supreme Court's decision was not routine and suggested that Kejriwal had received special treatment.
The Enforcement Directorate had argued that Kejriwal's statement about not having to return to jail if a certain political bloc won was contempt of court. However, the judges dismissed this argument as an assumption, stating that the order clearly outlined the conditions of Kejriwal's surrender.
Kejriwal was released from custody after 51 days following the Supreme Court's order. He had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case.
Bail as the Rule, Imprisonment as the Exception
The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to Kejriwal is consistent with its established principle that bail should be the rule and imprisonment the exception. This principle is based on the recognition that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that pretrial detention should only be used in limited circumstances.
The court's decision also takes into account the importance of elections in a democratic society. The court recognized that Kejriwal, as the head of a national party, has a significant role to play in the upcoming elections. Denying him bail could have had a negative impact on his ability to participate in the democratic process.
The Supreme Court's balanced approach to bail ensures that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their liberty while also protecting the interests of society.
Implications for Future Cases
The Supreme Court's decision in Kejriwal's case is likely to have implications for future cases involving the grant of bail to politicians and other high-profile individuals. The court's reasoning provides a clear framework for judges to consider when making bail decisions.
The court's emphasis on the principle of bail as the rule suggests that courts will be more reluctant to deny bail in cases where the accused is not a flight risk or a danger to society. The court's recognition of the importance of elections also suggests that courts will be more likely to grant bail to political candidates who are facing charges that could prevent them from participating in the democratic process.
The Supreme Court's decision in Kejriwal's case is a significant step forward in ensuring that the principle of bail as the rule is upheld in practice.
Source: "No Exception" In Bail To Arvind Kejriwal: Supreme Court Amid Criticism