The special CBI court, in its decision regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s case on the liquor policy, stated that based on the evidence available, it cannot presently deem his arrest unlawful. However, it cautioned the investigative agency against excessive zeal.
Kejriwal was placed in CBI custody for three days, two days fewer than the agency requested, following his arrest inside the Rouse Avenue court. Initially granted bail by the court, the Delhi High Court subsequently halted it, and the Supreme Court declined further relief, leading to the denial of bail by the high court.
Sunita Kejriwal, wife of the AAP leader, criticized what she perceived as a systemic effort to keep him incarcerated. She alleged, “Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail on June 20, only for the ED to intervene with a stay the next day. Immediately afterward, the CBI pressed charges, culminating in today’s arrest. This isn’t justice—it’s tyranny, reminiscent of an emergency.”
In granting the three-day CBI custody, the Rouse Avenue court affirmed the agency’s investigative prerogative, asserting, “While the current evidence doesn’t invalidate the arrest, the agency should exercise restraint.” The court instructed the CBI to present Kejriwal on Saturday and allowed him daily meetings with his wife, access to prescribed diet, medication, and other necessities during custody.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Kejriwal, argued against the necessity and timing of the arrest, emphasizing that the merits of the case should guide judicial decisions rather than mere timing considerations.
Kejriwal directly addressed the court, recounting his cooperation with the CBI during previous interrogations related to the liquor policy, highlighting the policy’s aims and his instructions to his deputy at the time.
Responding to Kejriwal’s claims, the CBI termed them unnecessary, clarifying that its actions were conducted lawfully and with court approval, asserting its right to conduct inquiries without prior notification to the accused.
The legal proceedings underscore a contentious clash between state power and individual rights, amidst ongoing legal maneuvers since August 2022, when Kejriwal was initially summoned as a witness in the case.
