On Friday, September 13, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail by the Supreme Court of India in the ongoing case concerning the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. This development marks a significant shift in the legal battle that has seen Kejriwal embroiled in controversy and detention for the past six months. The Supreme Court’s decision, while unanimously granting bail, was accompanied by divergent views from the two judges on the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest.
Justice Surya Kant, one of the judges on the bench, ruled that the arrest of Kejriwal was legally valid and did not suffer from any procedural irregularities. Justice Kant emphasized that extended imprisonment would constitute "unjust deprivation of liberty," underscoring the legal principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." He highlighted that the judicial process must be sensitive to the principle of liberty, especially when prolonged incarceration becomes a concern. Justice Kant’s ruling reflects a balanced approach toward maintaining legal norms while safeguarding individual rights.
In stark contrast, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan presented a dissenting opinion, deeming Kejriwal’s arrest as "unjustified." Justice Bhuyan criticized the timing of the arrest, which occurred shortly after Kejriwal was granted interim bail in the ED’s money laundering case. He suggested that the CBI's action was strategically timed to prevent Kejriwal’s release from custody. Justice Bhuyan expressed concerns over the CBI’s conduct, arguing that it should operate transparently and without political bias. He invoked the notion of the CBI being a "caged parrot," a phrase previously used by the Supreme Court to criticize the agency’s susceptibility to political influence. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks reflected a deep concern about the agency's perceived misuse of power and its impact on justice.
Kejriwal’s release on bail is poised to be a considerable boost for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), particularly as the party gears up for the upcoming Haryana Assembly elections. The AAP is expected to leverage this development to enhance its electoral prospects, challenging both the incumbent BJP and its Congress allies. The party is also preparing for the Delhi Assembly elections next year, aiming to secure a third consecutive term in office. Kejriwal’s return to the public domain will likely galvanize the AAP's campaign efforts and mobilize support from its voter base.
The conditions of Kejriwal’s bail include a bond of Rs 10 lakh and restrictions on his public statements regarding the case. Additionally, he is prohibited from visiting the Delhi Secretariat or signing any official files. These conditions are designed to prevent any potential interference with the ongoing investigation and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
The legal battle began when Kejriwal was initially arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21, in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam. Subsequently, on June 26, he was arrested by the CBI while still in ED custody. Despite being granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in the ED case on July 12, Kejriwal remained in Tihar Jail due to the CBI’s charges.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Kejriwal’s defense argued that the CBI's arrest was an "insurance arrest," intended to keep him detained despite his interim bail status in the ED case. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that as a constitutional functionary, Kejriwal posed no flight risk or threat to the evidence. On the other hand, the CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, alleged that significant kickbacks from the excise policy were used by the AAP in the Goa Assembly elections of 2022.
The contrasting judgments highlight the complexities and contentious nature of the case. Kejriwal’s release not only represents a legal victory but also has broader implications for the political landscape in India, influencing both the ongoing investigation and the upcoming elections.
Â
