Delhi high court rejects ‘fanciful’ bail plea for Kejriwal by law student

The court said the plea was not maintainable since it did not challenge the judicial orders by virtue of which chief minister Arvind Kejriwal was incarcerated

The Delhi high court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking extraordinary interim bail for chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, and imposed a fine of ₹75,000 on the petitioner.

The court also imposed a fine of ₹75,000 on the petitioner. (Representational image)

The court was of the view that the petition was not maintainable since the law student, who had filed the plea on behalf of “We, the People of India”, had not challenged the judicial orders by virtue of which Kejriwal was incarcerated.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, who appeared for Kejriwal, called the plea an “ambush litigation” and said that his client has taken steps to enforce and protect his legal rights. Mehra pointed out that the same bench had earlier dismissed pleas seeking Kejriwal’s removal from his post as chief minister, following his arrest, adding that one of them was dismissed with a fine of ₹50,000.

Kejriwal, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in connection with a money laundering probe pertaining to alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy 2021-22. He is currently lodged in Tihar prison.

On Monday, the high court was hearing the law student’s petition, in which he sought Kejriwal’s release against his personal bond, coupled with an undertaking on the latter’s behalf that he would not try to influence the witnesses involved or destroy evidence. The student had filed the petition claiming that he was the custodian and representative of the people of India and thus had “veto power”, which was sufficient to give concession to any accused, if arrested or confined in jail. He had also cited danger to Kejriwal’s safety since he is confined in Tihar jail with “hardcore criminals” facing prosecution in cases such as rape, dacoity, murder and bomb blasts.

However, a bench led by acting chief justice Manmohan called the petition “totally misconceived”.

“This court is of the view that the present petition is non maintainable as Arvind Kejriwal is in judicial custody in pursuance to judicial orders which have not been challenged. Further, this court in writ jurisdiction cannot grant extraordinary interim bail in pending criminal cases initiated against a person holding high office. It is important to bear in mind the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution as a basic tenet of rule of law is “be you ever so high, the law is above you”. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the Constitution of India,” the bench, also comprising justice Manmeet PS Arora, said.

Calling the law student’s claims as “fanciful”, the court said that the former did not hold any power of attorney on Kejriwal’s behalf to either extend such personal bonds or make such undertakings

“This court is of the view that the petitioner’s claim to be the custodian and representative of the people of India is nothing but a fanciful plaint which is devoid of any basis. It is even more strange that the petitioner has offered to extend a personal bond in favour of respondent number 5 (Kejriwal) and undertaken that the respondent will not try to influence the witnesses involved or try to destroy the evidence. The petitioner holds no power of attorney on behalf of respondent number 5 (Kejriwal) to either make such statements/undertaking on his behalf or extend such personal bonds,” the court said.

Further underlining the tenets pertaining to relaxation of the principle of locus standi, the court remarked that the law student was a stranger to the criminal proceedings against Kejriwal and thus had no right to file the plea. Kejriwal, the court said, had the means and wherewithal to enforce his legal rights and had exercised the same by approaching the Supreme Court against the high court’s order rejecting his plea for release.

“The glaring lack of locus standi is further augmented with the fact that the petitioner is stranger to the criminal proceedings against respondent number 5 (Kejriwal). It is a settled principle of law that an aggrieved party must approach the court. The rule of locus standi is relaxed in cases of PILs but that is to be done to ensure that the poor, socially and economically backward or persons with disability are not denied their rights. In the present case the Respondent number 5 is currently in judicial custody and has the means and the wherewithal to file appropriate proceedings which in fact he has so done before this court as well as the apex court,” the court noted.

The court also rejected law student’s claims seeking bail for the chief minister on the ground that the government and the cabinet ministers “were in a jammed mode” due to Kejriwal’s incarceration, saying that it had already given its opinion in this regard.

To be sure, the high court earlier this month had rejected three pleas seeking the removal of Kejriwal from the chief minister’s post, observing that sometimes personal interest must be trumped by national interest, but it was for the AAP convenor to take a call.