New Delhi: Bearing in mind the ongoing Lok Sabha elections and the fact that he is the leader of one of the national parties, the Supreme Court Friday granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal till 1 June. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener has been in jail since March this year on money laundering allegations in connection with the now-withdrawn Delhi excise policy.
Taking a “holistic and libertarian view,” a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, however, restrained Kejriwal from visiting the Chief Minister’s Office at the Delhi Secretariat and ordered that he was bound by statement made on his behalf in court that he would not sign any official files unless it is “required and necessary for obtaining clearance/approval of the Lieutenant Governor”.
“It is no gain saying that General Elections to Lok Sabha is the most significant and an important event this year, as it should be in a national election year. Between 650-700 million voters out of an electorate of about 970 million will cast their votes to elect the government of this country for the next five years. General Elections supply the vis viva to a democracy,” the bench said, rejecting the Enforcement Directorate’s contention that relief to Kejriwal in the case would be seen as if the political class is a privileged section of the society and that politicians have a special status.
ED had opposed the court’s suggestion to let Kejriwal out on bail for election purposes and said since campaigning is not a fundamental right, the court should not consider giving him the reprieve.
But the court held it can always consider the question of grant of interim bail keeping in mind the “peculiarities associated” with Kejriwal and the “surrounding circumstances,” which in the present case was the elections.
To ignore the same would be “iniquitous and wrong,” it added.
The court dismissed ED’s argument that any order favouring Kerjiwal at this juncture would defy the constitutional provision on equality as it would create an “unreasonable class” and discriminate against other sections of the society, such as traders, who are jailed on money-laundering charges.
The court said the facts in Kejriwal’s case cannot be compared with harvesting of crops or plea to look after business affairs.
The interim order comes while Kejriwal’s appeal asking it to invalidate his arrest by ED and remand is pending before the court.
The judges said they were “prompted” to consider and pass the interim bail order because it was not possible for them to conclude the arguments or pronounce the final judgement on Kejriwal’s petition. The “intervening factor” of ongoing Lok Sabha elections weighed heavily with the judges.
Kejriwal’s release, according to the interim order, is subject to him furnishing “bail bonds in the sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent” and him surrendering on 2 June. He cannot make any comment with regard to his alleged role in the excise policy case and will not interact with any of the witnesses or have access to any official files connected with it.
The order, however, does not prohibit him completely from speaking about the case, despite an oral request made by two senior law officers – Solicitor General Tushar Metha and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju. Both addressed the court when the judges Friday assembled briefly at 2 pm to convey its decision to grant interim bail to Kejriwal.
Also Read: Unscrupulous politicians will avoid probe under garb of polls, ED tells SC to oppose Kejriwal’s bail
‘This case is not an exception’
A request made by Kejriwal’s legal team to let him remain out on bail till June end was also dismissed orally. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi then went on to request the court to extend the release period till 5 June. He reasoned this would cover the last phase of the ongoing elections in which Punjab will vote and also the date when the results would be announced. However, the bench showed no inclination to acknowledge the senior counsel’s request and got up to leave the courtroom.
Before their exit, Justice Khanna told the lawyers that it would hear both the parties next week and reserve its judgement.
“Given the prodigious importance, we reject the argument raised on behalf of the prosecution that grant of interim bail/release on this account would be giving premium of placing the politicians in a benefic position compared to ordinary citizens of this country,” said the bench, as it decided to address the issue of interim bail to the chief minister.
It said in view of his petition pending before the court and the Lok Sabha elections in progress, it was not “proper” for the court to direct Kejriwal to approach the trial court, asking for his release. “This may not be apt in view of the legal issues and contentions that are under examination and consideration before us,” the judges observed in the eight-page order.
It did not agree with ED’s argument that Kejriwal should not be given interim benefit, saying that the court has in the past exercised its power to give such a relief in a number of cases. “This case is not an exception,” the order said.
Though the court identified Kejriwal’s failure to respond to ED’s nine notices/summonses, with the first one issued in October 2023, as a “negative factor,” it said there were other facets that favoured him. And these were his being the CM of Delhi and leader of a national party.
Despite the “serious accusations,” the court felt the AAP leader merited interim bail for now because he is not a threat to society, does not have any criminal antecedents and has not been convicted. The court noted the investigation in the case is pending since August 2022.
“The ECIR was registered in August, you (ED) arrested him in March (this year). ED could have arrested him before or afterwards (the elections). Whatever it is, 21 days here and there cannot make a difference,” the judges remarked orally when they sat in the court for a few minutes to pronounce the order Friday.
The court clarified that its order should not be “treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal which is pending consideration before us”.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)