Supreme Court to deliver judgment on Arvind Kejriwal’s petitions tomorrow

Kejriwal has challenged the August 5 decision of the Delhi HC, which upheld his arrest by the CBI and refused to entertain his plea for bail because he did not go to the trial court first

The Supreme Court is set to deliver its judgment on Friday on Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petitions challenging his arrest and demanding bail in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case. This decision, awaited since the court reserved its verdict on September 5, is expected to have wide ramifications on both the legal and political landscape.

Kejriwal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged his arrest by the CBI. (Arvind Kejriwal | Facebook)

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener has challenged the August 5 decision of the Delhi high court, which upheld his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and refused to entertain his plea for bail because Kejriwal did not go to the trial court first.

During the previous hearing, a bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that the judgment would contribute to the evolution of criminal law while ensuring that it does not demoralise the subordinate judiciary. The court’s observation came after CBI warned that a decision in Kejriwal’s favour might set a precedent that could undermine the authority of subordinate courts. The bench, however, stressed that its ruling would be framed in a way that preserves the integrity of all judicial institutions.

In a series of recent judgments, the top court reaffirmed the principle that bail should be the norm, with jail being an exception, even in cases involving stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The apex court has also urged lower courts to exercise caution when staying bail orders, highlighting the importance of upholding personal liberty.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark judgment that a person already in custody for one offence can still seek anticipatory bail for a different offence, asserting that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be safeguarded unless specifically restricted by law. In another order on the same day, the court underscored that an accused is entitled to a fair and speedy trial, as guaranteed by Article 21, and that the legal process should not be allowed to turn into a form of punishment.

Kejriwal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged his arrest by CBI contending that procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were breached. Kejriwal has remained in custody since June 26, after his arrest by CBI, despite previously being granted bail in a related case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Singhvi argued that the CBI’s decision to arrest Kejriwal was unwarranted, particularly given that for two years since the registration of the case in 2022, the investigative agency had not found it necessary to take such action. Kejriwal’s legal team highlighted that his arrest, allegedly for non-cooperation, did not meet the requirements under Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC, which demand sufficient cause and prior notice before arrest.

Arguing for the CM on September 5, Singhvi underscored the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Manish Sisodia case, where the top court granted bail and emphasised that it would be unfair to send Sisodia back to the trial court for bail, as doing so would amount to playing a “snake and ladder” game.

In response, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju defended CBI’s actions, asserting that the federal agency followed proper procedure under CrPC. He pointed out that Kejriwal chose to bypass the trial court and directly approach the high court, arguing that “this is not the regular course” and accused Kejriwal of seeking “special treatment”.

According to Raju, Kejriwal should have adhered to the legal process like any ordinary citizen, and his decision to approach higher courts prematurely was evidence of him acting as if he were a “special” and “extraordinary person”.

In his closing argument on September 5, Singhvi questioned the grounds for the arrest, particularly the accusation of non-cooperation. “How does non-cooperation amount to grounds for arrest?” he asked, emphasising that Kejriwal was not a “hardened criminal” and that his arrest was neither justified nor necessary.

Raju rebutted by insisting that Kejriwal’s arrest was fully justified based on new evidence uncovered during the investigation. Raju also highlighted that Kejriwal had allegedly influenced decisions in Punjab linked to the excise policy, revealing a “broader nexus of corruption” that warranted continued detention.

The CBI case is premised on Kejriwal’s alleged involvement in the formulation and execution of the Delhi excise policy 2021-22, which was later scrapped over allegations of irregularities and corruption, followed by a probe ordered by the Delhi lieutenant governor.

Although Kejriwal did not hold any official ministerial portfolio, CBI has contended that all critical decisions in the formulation of the policy were taken at his, “in connivance with the then deputy chief minister and minister of excise, Manish Sisodia.”

Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court on August 12, two days after the top court granted bail to Sisodia in the related probed by CBI and ED. In his petition, Kejriwal relied heavily on the Sisodia verdict, in which the top court held that the former deputy CM’s long incarceration of 17 months and his continued detention in a case where there was no hope of trial ending anytime soon impinged on his fundamental right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.