New Delhi:

The Supreme Court is likely to give its verdict today on interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam and is seeking a release from jail to campaign for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

A bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, had reserved its verdict on interim bail to Mr Kejriwal on May 7.

Mr Kejriwal, who is also the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), is currently lodged in Tihar jail under judicial custody.

The bench has divided the hearing on Mr Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest into two parts. While his main petition challenges his arrest by the central probe agency and seeks it to be declared as “illegal”, the second aspect pertains to the grant of interim bail keeping in mind the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

The Delhi High Court had on April 9 upheld the AAP chief’s arrest, saying there was no illegality and that the probe agency was left with “little option” after he skipped repeated summonses and refused to join the investigation related to alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy 2021-22.

Earlier on Tuesday, a Delhi court extended Mr Kejriwal’s judicial custody in the money laundering case till May 20.

ED Opposes Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail 

The ED on Thursday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing Arvind Kejriwal’s petition and said that laws are equal for all and that campaigning for the Lok Sabha polls is not a fundamental, constitutional, or even a legal right.

The probe agency said that no political leader has ever been granted bail for campaigning and said that letting Mr Kejriwal out of jail to canvas for AAP candidates would set a wrong precedent.

In its affidavit, the ED pointed out that, while hearing the bail plea of former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia — a co-accused in the same case — the court had said that the laws apply equally to all citizens and institutions, including the State.

Stating that Mr Kejriwal had sought interim bail primarily for campaigning in the Lok Sabha elections, the agency submitted, “It is relevant to note that the right to campaign is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right.”

The agency also argued that 123 elections have taken place in the past five years and if interim bail is granted to Mr Kejriwal for campaigning, then no politician can be kept in judicial custody since polls take place around the year.

The ED repeated an argument it had made during the last hearing and said that campaigning is part of a politician’s job and, following the rule of equality, small farmers or small traders can also seek interim bail to carry out the demands of their work. It also stressed that Mr Kejriwal is not even contesting the ongoing elections.

The agency stated that granting bail to the Delhi Chief Minister would set a precedent that would permit “all unscrupulous politicians” to commit crimes and then evade investigation citing campaigning for one election or the other.

Supreme Court’s Last Hearing On Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail

In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had said it was not going by whether the petitioner is a politician or not. The focus, the bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, was on whether there was an exceptional circumstance which necessitated interim bail.

The Supreme Court also said that Arvind Kejriwal is the elected chief minister of Delhi and is not a habitual offender.

“There are elections… these are extraordinary circumstances and he is not a habitual offender,” the bench had said.

The bench also asked the ED why it took them two years to act against the chief minister and his party.

“The issue is that it has taken two years for this. It is not good for any investigating agency to say that it takes two years to unearth… now when will the trial start,” it asked.

All seven seats in Delhi will vote in the sixth phase of the seven-phased Lok Sabha elections on May 25.

New Delhi:

Rejecting it as ‘not maintainable’, the Delhi High Court today imposed a Rs one lakh penalty on a petitioner, who sought permission and facilities for Arvind Kejriwal to set up the chief minister’s office in jail to govern the union territory from judicial custody.

Filed by advocate Shrikant Prasad, the PIL petition sought to facilitate virtual conferencing arrangements for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to engage with cabinet ministers, ensuring uninterrupted governance. It also sought to restrain media houses from sensationalising news about the chief minister’s potential resignation and the imposition of President’s Rule in the national capital.

On Wednesday, a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan observed that since Mr Kejriwal has already filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging his arrest by ED and that the top court is considering the issue of interim release, no orders for allowing him to interact with cabinet ministers through virtual conferencing is called for in the PIL.

The bench also said that it can neither impose censorship by directing the media not to air views nor stop political opponents from making statements calling for Mr Kejriwal’s resignation.

The PIL had targeted Virendra Sachdeva, BJP Delhi president, alleging that his protests and statements create undue pressure for Mr Kejriwal’s resignation, disrupting peace and traffic flow with politically motivated intentions.

The bench rejected the PIL with a Rs 1 lakh fine to be deposited with AIIMS.

The court criticised the PIL asking, “What do we do? Impose an emergency? Impose censorship or martial law? How do we pass gag orders against the press and political rivals?”

Mr Prasad’s petition stressed the commendable track record of Delhi’s governance, particularly in the education and healthcare sectors over the past seven years. It contends that the present circumstances in the national capital violate fundamental rights under Articles 21, 14, and 19 of the Indian Constitution.

Asserting that neither the Constitution nor any law prohibits ministers, including chief ministers or prime ministers, from governing from jail, Mr Prasad’s plea stressed the urgency of the matter, citing the need to ensure continuity in governance for the welfare of the people.

“As the makers of the Constitution were vigilant enough that there might be a situation when the politics of the country will enter into the worst and at that time just to keep the public fundamental rights upheld it is very much required that there is no compulsion or any obligation for resignation, otherwise gravest repercussions may arise by repeating the same modus operandi for making any minister resign,” Mr Prasad’s PIL said.

The petition urged expedited consideration from the court, citing the exceptional governance of Delhi amidst Arvind Kejriwal’s incarceration, attributed to alleged political motives and false implications in the liquor policy case.

“The Aam Aadmi Party, led by Arvind Kejriwal got a sweeping majority by winning 62 out of 70 seats in the 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly election. Also in the preceding Delhi Assembly election on 07th Feb 2015, the Aam Aadmi Party, led by Arvind Kejriwal won 67 out of 70 seats with absolute majority. The above ratio shows that governance of Delhi by Shri Arvind Kejriwal is an unprecedented move in India,” Mr Prasad’s petition said.

The plea stressed the constitutional safeguards and the imperative to maintain governance continuity despite the Chief Minister’s legal predicament.

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is in judicial custody in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam case.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)