 "Court extends Kejriwal's judicial custody till May 20 in excise policy case")
The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi on Tuesday extended Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's judicial custody till May 20 in connection with the money laundering case related to the liquor policy case.
Additionally, the Supreme Court (SC) today pushed forward the verdict on Kejriwal's interim bail plea and said that it may announce the order next week. The top court said that if Kejriwal, currently in jail, were to receive interim bail, he would not be permitted to resume official duties due to potential "cascading effects."
"We will give you a date for the day after tomorrow. If it's not possible, we will keep it sometime next week. Next week is going to be very difficult," stated Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta while deliberating on Kejriwal's petition challenging his March 21 arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
During the Supreme Court proceedings, the two-judge bench asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the jailed chief minister, on whether Kejriwal would return to office, sign files, and "give directions to others" if released on interim bail.
Singhvi clarified that Kejriwal "won't be dealing with the excise case. He is a sitting chief minister."
The bench then said that if it decides to release the AAP chief, "we are very clear that we don't want you to be performing official duties since it may have a cascading effect".
Also Read
"We do not want interference at all in the work of the government. It's your wish that you want to continue as chief minister. Today, it is not a question of legality but propriety. We are considering the interim bail just because of elections, else we wouldn't have considered it at all," the bench said.
The top court also told the probe agency that it would hear the bail arguments as Kejriwal is "the sitting chief minister of Delhi and needs to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections".
"This is an extraordinary situation. He is not a habitual offender. Elections occur once every five years. It's not like harvesting a crop that happens every four to six months. We need to prioritise whether he should be released in the interim," the bench stated.
The ED, however, opposed the court's suggestion, arguing that it would set a "wrong precedent".
"A politician has no special rights compared to ordinary citizens. Should all MPs and MLAs facing prosecution be released on bail?" the agency asked.
The court then requested senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, to respond to the issues raised by the ED.
"Can a politician receive special treatment compared to a common man? There are 5,000 facing prosecution. What if all of them request to campaign? Nine summons over six months—the ED cannot be blamed for choosing the timing. They have yet to present evidence, so can interim bail be granted at this stage?" asked the court.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court further asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, about the delay to question and probe the AAP supremo.
"When we started the investigation, it wasn't directly aimed at him [Kejriwal]. His involvement emerged during the investigation. That is why, initially, no questions were asked about him. The investigation was not focused on him," stated SV Raju.
In response, the bench said, "This is an unusual case. Factually, there are no contradictions in the statements. They can't be assumed to favour the petitioner."
The bench further asked, "Why did you take so long, and why were the questions not asked? We understand that no questions were asked about him. The only issue is why there was a delay."
The ASG explained that Kejriwal was not questioned initially to avoid accusations of malafide intent. “It takes time to comprehend the situation. We can't resolve everything overnight. Things must be verified," he added.
The court ordered an examination of the files before and after the arrests of AAP leader Manish Sisodia and Kejriwal. "There is one prosecution complaint after Manish Sisodia's bail was rejected, Rs 1,100 crore attached," Raju said.
The court then asked, "Mr Raju, how did it become Rs 1,100 crore in two years? Earlier, you said the proceeds of crime amounted to Rs 100 crore."
"It's because of the benefits of the policy," Raju replied. However, Justice Khanna clarified that "the entire profit is not the proceeds of crime."
The court also sought files related to Sarath Reddy, a Hyderabad-based businessman arrested in November 2023 and who later became an approver in the case.
"We can show that Kejriwal demanded Rs 100 crore. In the early stages, he was not the focus, and the investigating agency [ED] was not looking into that. His role became clearer only as the investigation progressed," stated SV Raju.
Arvind Kejriwal, currently lodged in Tihar Jail, approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court denied his petition challenging his arrest and remand on April 9.
The AAP national convenor's petition claims that his arrest was conducted "in a motivated manner," relying solely on contradictory, "highly belated statements of co-accused" who have now turned approvers.
The petition calls for his release and requests that the arrest be declared "illegal."