In a breakthrough for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has secured regular bail from the Supreme Court in a corruption case tied to the now-defunct liquor excise policy.
This decision not only paves the way for his release from custody but also brings a new twist in this high-stakes legal battle.
Legal Contention Over Arrest
Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest sparked debate among legal circles, leading to differing opinions within the Supreme Court itself. Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, despite agreeing on the bail grant, split over the arrest’s legality by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Senior advocate A.M.
Singhvi, standing for the Chief Minister, labeled the arrest without a warrant as unlawful, stating the absence of risk for further offences as Kejriwal was already in custody.
In contrast, the CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued that the arrest was legit after special court clearance. Justice Kant sided with the CBI, citing the irrelevance of forming an opinion on valid reasons for arrest when already endorsed by the court.
Timing and Rights of the Accused
Questions on the timing of the arrest emerged, with Justice Bhuyan pointing out the suspicious haste 22 months after the initial FIR, as Kejriwal was at the brink of release on bail in a related ED case.
He underscored the accused’s constitutional right against self-incrimination, refuting the notion that non-cooperation equates to evasion.
The Perception Battle
Justice Bhuyan recalled the term “caged parrot”, used by the Supreme Court in 2013, addressing the CBI’s obligation to operate with integrity and impartiality, aloof from becoming a tool for harassment.
Bail Over Jail: Upholding Liberty
The scenario took a turn when the Supreme Court acknowledged the AAP chief’s right to liberty, citing extensive documentary evidence already on record. The Court emphasized the trial’s elongated trajectory, which compounded the reason for granting bail.
Arvind Kejriwal was thus ordered to be released on a ₹10 lakh bond with specific conditions, like refraining from discussing the case publicly, as advised in an earlier interim bail for the Lok Sabha elections.
Final Take: Process and Precedent
The apex court’s judgments touched upon procedural approaches, with Justice Kant advising accused to seek initial relief from trial courts, to preserve high courts as a secondary recourse.
However, if a delay transpires post-notice, bouncing between courts on procedural grounds is discouraged, given the gravity of personal liberty.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the contentious CBI case marks a significant moment in India’s judicial and political landscape.
It is an assertive reminder of the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring the procedural integrity of investigations.
As the AAP leader emerges from custody, the repercussions of this case will undoubtedly resonate within political and legal corridors, reaffirming the undeniable importance of due process and personal liberty.
