The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment on Friday regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petitions challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the Delhi excise policy case. This decision follows the court’s reserved verdict on September 5, and its outcome could have far-reaching implications for both the political and legal landscape.
Kejriwal’s Arrest and High Court’s Decision
Kejriwal, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener, was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case. He has been in custody since June 26, despite securing bail in a related case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Delhi High Court upheld his arrest and refused to entertain his bail plea because Kejriwal did not first approach the trial court.
Kejriwal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, has challenged the arrest, claiming procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were violated. Singhvi argued that for two years since the registration of the case in 2022, the CBI did not find it necessary to arrest Kejriwal, raising questions about the validity of his arrest.
Supreme Court’s Observations
During the previous hearing, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that the judgment would significantly shape criminal law without undermining the authority of subordinate courts. The court’s observation came after the CBI warned that a decision favouring Kejriwal might set a precedent, weakening the power of lower courts. However, the bench maintained that its ruling would preserve the integrity of all judicial institutions.
The Supreme Court has, in recent judgments, reaffirmed the principle that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, even in cases involving stringent laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The apex court has urged lower courts to avoid staying bail orders unnecessarily, highlighting the significance of personal liberty.
Singhvi’s Arguments for Kejriwal
Singhvi contended that Kejriwal’s arrest was unwarranted and based on the claim of non-cooperation, which he argued was not a valid reason for arrest under Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC. He emphasised that the arrest did not meet the CrPC’s requirements for sufficient cause and prior notice.
Singhvi also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Manish Sisodia case, in which the top court granted bail and emphasised that sending Sisodia back to the trial court would be akin to a “snake and ladder” game. Singhvi questioned why Kejriwal’s arrest was justified, especially considering that he had been cooperating with the investigation for two years.
CBI’s Defence
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju defended the CBI’s actions, asserting that proper procedure under CrPC had been followed. He argued that Kejriwal bypassed the trial court by directly approaching the high court, which, according to Raju, was not the standard course of action. He criticised Kejriwal for seeking “special treatment” and argued that he should adhere to the legal process like any other citizen.
Raju further justified the arrest by stating that new evidence had been uncovered, linking Kejriwal to a broader nexus of corruption, including decisions in Punjab related to the excise policy. This, he claimed, warranted Kejriwal’s continued detention.
The Delhi Excise Policy Case
The CBI’s case against Kejriwal revolves around his alleged involvement in the formulation and execution of the Delhi excise policy for 2021-22, which was later scrapped amid allegations of irregularities and corruption. The Delhi lieutenant governor had ordered a probe into the matter. Though Kejriwal did not hold an official portfolio related to the policy, the CBI contends that he made all key decisions in collaboration with the then-deputy chief minister and excise minister, Manish Sisodia.
Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court on August 12, shortly after the court granted bail to Sisodia in a related case. His petition relies heavily on the Sisodia verdict, which held that Sisodia’s prolonged incarceration of 17 months violated his fundamental right to liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Kejriwal’s bail plea could have wide-ranging effects, both legally and politically. A decision in Kejriwal’s favour could set a precedent regarding the conditions under which arrests can be made in cases of alleged non-cooperation, potentially influencing future investigations and detentions under similar circumstances.
Furthermore, the judgment will likely shape the political landscape in Delhi and beyond. Kejriwal’s arrest and the ongoing investigations have already strained relations between the AAP and central authorities. If the court rules in Kejriwal’s favour, it may provide a significant boost to his political standing, while a denial of bail could prolong his detention and affect AAP’s leadership dynamics.
The outcome of the case will also contribute to the broader discussion on the right to personal liberty, judicial discretion in granting bail, and the need for judicial institutions to balance procedural fairness with law enforcement objectives.