दिल्ली के मुख्यमंत्री अरविंद केजरीवाल की याचिका पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सुनाया अपना फैसला

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest in connection with the now-scrapped excise policy. The court said its verdict would be carefully crafted to demoralise the subordinate judiciary while contributing to the development of criminal law. The Aam Aadmi Party convenor challenged the Delhi High Court's August 5 verdict that upheld his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and refused to entertain his plea for bail as Kejriwal had not moved the trial court first. "Whatever verdict we pronounce, we will ensure that our institution is not demoralised in any manner...It is the duty of a constitutional court to contribute to the development of law...not to apply the law in a regressive manner," a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

The observation came after the CBI counsel cautioned the court against setting a precedent that could "demoralise" subordinate courts; but the bench assured him that the Supreme Court's decision would carefully consider the integrity of all judicial institutions. Kejriwal has been in custody since March 21 following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the same case, and in May, the apex court had granted him 21 days' interim bail to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections. On July 12, the Supreme Court had granted Kejriwal interim bail in the ED case, in which he admitted he had spent more than 90 days in jail. However, he remained in custody due to his arrest by the CBI in the excise policy case on June 26.

The day-long hearing on Thursday saw a heated exchange between senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, and additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, who defended the CBI action. Singhvi, who centred his arguments on what he termed as an “unwanted” arrest, said the CBI “did not deem it necessary to arrest Kejriwal for two years” after filing the case in August 2022. He pointed out that the CBI had summoned Kejriwal in April 2023 but took no action until June 26, 2024, when it “arrested” him to ensure that if the AAP leader gets bail in the ED case, he would remain in jail. Singhvi alleged that Kejriwal's arrest violated procedural safeguards under Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which require notice and sufficient cause before arrest,

He argued that Kejriwal was arrested only for "non-cooperation", which he termed a vague and inadequate reason. The senior lawyer stressed that "non-cooperation does not mean self-incrimination," and criticised the high court's decision to remand the bail plea back to the trial court despite hearing all relevant issues. "The high court erred in remanding the matter when all the facts were before it," Singhvi said, citing over a dozen judgments to support his claim of concurrent jurisdiction in bail matters. He said Kejriwal had already passed the "triple test" for bail, which assesses whether the accused is a risk of fleeing, likely to tamper with evidence or capable of influencing witnesses.

The lawyer stressed that after Kejriwal was granted bail in the ED case registered under the more stringent law, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, there is no reason why he should be denied bail in the CBI case. Singhvi underlined the Supreme Court's judgment in the Manish Sisodia case, where the apex court granted bail and stressed that it would be unfair to send Sisodia back to the trial court for bail, as doing so would be akin to playing a game of snakes and ladders. At this juncture, ASG Raju intervened, pointing out the difference between the two cases. Sisodia had already approached the trial court twice and his bail was rejected. How many times has it happened here? It is not appropriate to rely on a paragraph without considering the entire facts. My Lord cannot act as a court of prima facie. There is a clear hierarchy, argued Raju. However, Singhvi stood by his position, saying the prosecution wanted to "start the ladder again from the very beginning".