Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal interim bail till June 1 in the wake of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The Aam Aadmi Party supremo was asked to return to custody on 2 June, two days before the results of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
A bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta announced interim bail for Arvind Kejriwal until June 1. In its comprehensive order, the apex court noted that Kejriwal’s bail case was special since he was a sitting CM and needed to campaign for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the case, opposed the temporary bail, arguing for “equitable treatment” for all parties. However, the bench dismissed their objections. The law officers urged the bench to impose conditions on Kejriwal, preventing him from discussing the excise policy case while out on bail.
The court noted that it was addressing the matter of an elected Chief Minister, not a repeat offender, and emphasised that general elections occur only once every five years. Four more phases of general elections are left, with the national capital Delhi going to the polls on May 25, 2024.
At this juncture, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, requested the bench to extend the interim bail period until June 4, coinciding with the announcement of Lok Sabha election results. However, the bench rejected the plea.
Mehta interjected, suggesting that the court order should specify Kejriwal’s surrender before the Tihar jail authorities on June 2, with no provision for extending the bail period.
Agreeing, Justice Khanna affirmed, “He will surrender on 2nd June.” Subsequently, the bench adjourned, indicating that detailed arguments on Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the ED on March 21 and subsequent remand would be heard in July, after the court’s summer break.
The matter pertains to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government’s now-scrapped excise policy for 2021-22.
On Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted an affidavit opposing any “special treatment” for political figures during elections. It argued that granting bail for election campaigning would establish a dangerous precedent, undermining the principles of the rule of law and equality before the law.
The agency contended that if politicians were to be granted bail for election campaigning, it would create a loophole where no politician could ever be arrested or held in custody, especially in a country like India where elections occur frequently throughout the year.
It is worth noting that Delhi HC in April had dismissed Kejriwal’s plea against arrest in the Delhi liquor policy case, asserting that the Enforcement Directorate’s evidence against the AAP supremo showed his involvement.
Making grave observations against the involvement of CM Kejriwal, the Delhi HC said the evidence shows he conspired and was actively involved in the use and proceeds of the crime.
“The evidence gathered by the ED indicates that Mr Arvind Kejriwal conspired and played an active role in the utilization and concealment of proceeds of crime. The ED’s case also suggests his involvement both in a personal capacity and as the convenor of AAP,” the Delhi HC witheringly observed.
Yet, the Supreme Court went ahead and granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal earlier today. For a layperson, it is incredibly confusing to predict what is the judiciary’s stance on a particular matter if there is such a wide variance in the interpretations of the matter by the two strands of the judiciary.
It is notable to mention that the AAP government in Punjab informed the Punjab and Haryana High Court that they have facilitated Amritpal Singh, who is currently detained under the National Security Act (NSA), to file his nomination for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. Will the Supreme Court go by the same yardstick and grant Singh bail until the elections are over, i.e. by June 1?
If yes, then would it not amount to preferential treatment of politicians as against common people, or does the judiciary intend to grant bail to everyone who applies for one, just because Lok Sabha elections are underway? If that’s the path we are onto, the need for judicial reforms cannot be overstated. The Supreme Court, however, noted that Amritpal Singh’s case is different, but it didn’t cut ice with many legal observers.
Besides, the approval for bail also bears an implicit message to the investigating agencies, curbing their independence and restricting them from taking any hostile action or arresting potential convicts just because an election is around the corner, which in India is all too often. If politicians keep getting bail on account of ongoing elections, it would be impossible for investigating agencies to conduct a fair probe without facing endless interruptions and delays.
At the same time, bail should not be denied to politicians or anybody else just because elections are underway. In essence, the grounds for approving or rejecting an applicant’s bail shouldn’t be election exigencies, but the gravity of allegations against them and taking into account the merits of the case and the evidence submitted by the agencies.
The grant of bail during elections, when the political atmosphere is supercharged, could also be exploited by the leaders and their supporters to shore up their electoral prospects. Arrest and possible culpability of an opposition leader is often spun off by their supporters and sympathising media as “vindictive” action by the incumbent government at the hands of investigating agencies characterised as “puppets”.
Additionally, in India, securing bail could often be touted as obtaining an acquittal, of being “vindicated” by the law of the land, even though such proclamations are patently misleading and are propped up only to garner public sympathy. It is anybody’s guess what Mr Kejriwal and his underlings would project with the bail reprieve granted by the top court. One doesn’t need to be a political pundit to conclude how such rhetoric can unduly influence the outcome of the elections.
Yes, there is a remote possibility that investigating agencies are pressed into action to clamp down on opposition leaders, but it should not be compensated with the grant of bail. Instead, the judiciary should direct the government of the day to institute reforms in the working of investigating agencies that would ensure they operate with complete independence and under no political duress.
But more importantly, the Arvind Kejriwal bail saga and the many contradictions and discrepancies derived from it suggest there is an urgent need for a judicial overhaul, which, besides fast-tracking cases, must also include several other modern provisions, including the grant of bail on the grounds of merit and not bestowing preferential treatment to one set of people above others.
Moralising lectures are often given to the voters to check the background of their candidates before voting. However, granting bail to politicians accused of serious crimes such as money laundering sends a conflicting message to the voters and the public in general. The Judiciary, widely regarded as the guardian of public conscience, should step up to the task.