New Delhi: Bail or no bail? That’s the question the Supreme Court will answer this morning as it rules on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea following his June arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the alleged liquor excise policy scam. The court will also deliver a verdict on a separate petition challenging the CBI’s arrest. Both rulings are expected at 10:30 am, but in a significant development, the two-judge bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surya Kant will deliver separate judgments.
If the ruling favors Mr. Kejriwal, he could be released nearly six months after his initial arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and two months after receiving bail for that arrest.
However, Mr. Kejriwal could not be released on July 12, as the CBI arrested him weeks earlier, despite the ED dropping its challenge, both related to the same case.
In various legal forums, including during the current Supreme Court petitions, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Mr. Kejriwal, has criticized the second arrest as an “insurance policy,” arguing it was intended to keep the AAP leader in jail and the party unsettled ahead of February’s Delhi election.
During the final hearing last week, before the court reserved its judgment, Singhvi highlighted that his client had already met the ‘triple test’ legal standard for bail, as the same court had granted him bail in the ED case.
The CBI has repeatedly highlighted what it claims is substantial evidence against Mr. Kejriwal, much of it based on testimony from ‘approvers’—former accused who have been pardoned or offered reduced sentences in exchange for testifying against the Chief Minister.
Like the ED, the CBI contends that Mr. Kejriwal played a significant role in drafting and approving the controversial liquor excise policy introduced in November 2021, which was later withdrawn eight months after its implementation.
However, the court dismissed the CBI’s argument that granting Mr. Kejriwal bail—after his plea was rejected by the High Court—would “demoralize” that judicial body. “Don’t say that…” the court responded.
The court, however, raised concerns about the agencies’ reliance on ‘approvers’ to build their case. In a previous decision to release Telangana politician K Kavitha, another accused in the same case, the court remarked, “You have to be fair… a person who incriminates himself is turned into a witness? Where is the fairness in that?”
In the lead-up to this verdict, the Supreme Court has emphasized the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” first established in 1977 by Justice Krishna Iyer, in connection with other cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which Mr. Kejriwal also faces charges under.
The court has previously argued that the bail provisions in the PMLA—specifically, Section 45, which imposes two additional conditions for release—cannot override an individual’s fundamental right to liberty. This reasoning has been widely interpreted to suggest that bail cannot be denied to a money laundering accused, provided other legal conditions are met.
After Singh, Sisodia, and Kavitha, Is Kejriwal Next?
If granted bail, Mr. Kejriwal will become the fifth and most prominent opposition leader to be released from jail in connection with this case. Among those already released are his former deputy Manish Sisodia, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, K Kavitha, and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak.
The Supreme Court ordered the release of these three high-profile figures, consistently emphasizing that authorities cannot keep accused individuals in prison indefinitely without trial. In Mr. Sisodia’s case last month, the court condemned the “travesty of justice” and highlighted the violation of a citizen’s right to liberty.
In April, while ordering the release of Mr. Singh, the court questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on why he had been held in jail for six months without trial. It also noted that the agency had failed to recover the alleged ₹2 crore bribe he was accused of receiving.
Last month, in releasing Ms. Kavitha, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader could not remain in jail if “the likelihood of a trial in the near future is impossible.”
Delhi Liquor Policy Case Explained
The Delhi liquor excise policy case centers on allegations that Mr. Kejriwal and the AAP received ₹100 crore in kickbacks, including substantial payments from a ‘South group’ led by Ms. Kavitha, in exchange for awarding wholesale licenses. The ED and CBI allege that this money was used by the AAP to finance election campaigns, including the 2022 Goa Assembly election.
Arvind Kejriwal and the AAP, along with Ms. Kavitha and her party, the BRS led by former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, have denied all charges. They have also accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which oversees federal agencies like the ED and CBI, of orchestrating a campaign against its critics and opposition leaders, especially ahead of elections.
