 |
|
The Supreme Court of India granted regular bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on September 13, 2024, in a case related to the now-scrapped excise policy. The case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Kejriwal and others. While both Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan concurred on granting bail, they differed on the legality of Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI. The judgment came after petitions filed by Kejriwal, represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, seeking bail and the quashing of his arrest by the CBI on June 26.
Justice Kant, while acknowledging the CBI arrest, stated it did not warrant interference as it did not suffer from any “procedural infirmity”. However, Justice Bhuyan expressed serious reservations about the timing and necessity of the arrest. He questioned why the CBI waited 22 months after registering the First Information Report (FIR) to arrest Kejriwal. He also refuted the CBI's argument that the arrest was necessary because Kejriwal gave “evasive” responses during interrogation, stating that an accused has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to make self-incriminating statements.
Justice Bhuyan further criticized the timing of the arrest, highlighting that it occurred when Kejriwal was on the cusp of release from jail following a Special Court order granting him bail in a connected money-laundering case. This, he argued, suggested an intention to “frustrate” Kejriwal's release. He emphasized the importance of an investigating agency maintaining a perception of being above board and urged the CBI to act like “Caesar’s wife,” dispelling the notion of being a “caged parrot”.
Despite their differing opinions on the legality of the arrest, both judges agreed that Kejriwal's continued incarceration violated his right to personal liberty. Considering the extensive documentary evidence, the large number of witnesses and accused, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial, the court found no reason to keep Kejriwal in custody in the CBI case, particularly as he had already been granted bail multiple times under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Supreme Court dismissed the CBI's apprehensions that Kejriwal might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. As part of the bail conditions, Kejriwal was required to pay a bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties and was barred from making any public comments about the CBI case, especially on social media networks, to avoid “building a narrative” about a sub judice matter. The court also prohibited Kejriwal from visiting the office of the Chief Minister or the Delhi Secretariat, or signing official files, unless it was necessary and required the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. These two conditions were adopted from the apex court's July 12 order granting Kejriwal bail in the connected money-laundering case investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
The Supreme Court's decision in the Delhi excise policy case has significant implications for the political landscape in India. The case, which has been ongoing for over two years, has been characterized by accusations of corruption and political maneuvering. The Supreme Court's judgment, while granting bail to Kejriwal, raises questions about the CBI's actions and the implications for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The case is likely to continue to generate controversy in the coming months as the trial proceeds.
Source: Arvind Kejriwal bail: Supreme Court grants bail to Kejriwal in Delhi excise policy case