New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it does not want Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to discharge his official duties if he is released on interim bail in a money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam, as it would lead to conflict of interest. Kejriwal has not got any relief from the Supreme Court at present. A two-judge bench did not pass any order on granting him interim bail to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal was arrested in this case on March 21 and is lodged in Tihar Jail in judicial custody.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta reserved its verdict on the question of interim bail, saying that allowing Kejriwal to continue in office could have a ‘widespread impact’. The bench told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, ‘Suppose we grant you interim bail because of the elections. Then if you say that you will discharge your official duties, it can have a wider impact.
The bench said, ‘If we grant you interim bail, we do not want you to perform official duties as it would create a conflict of interest somewhere. We do not want your interference in the functioning of the government at all.
Singhvi said that Kejriwal will not take any action on the file related to excise policy. However, he later said that Kejriwal will not sign any official file if released on interim bail, provided that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi does not reject the decisions just because the file does not bear his signature. The bench told Kejriwal’s lawyer, ‘First we will see whether interim bail can be granted or not.’
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), strongly opposed showing any leniency towards Kejriwal due to the Lok Sabha elections and said that granting interim bail to the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is a mistake for leaders. Would be like creating a separate category. The bench said, ‘We are not going to look into whether this is a case of any politician or not. Each individual involved has some special or exceptional cases or circumstances. We are only considering whether this is an exceptional case in view of the elections or whether the person involved is in an extraordinary situation…that’s all.
The bench said, ‘It should not be understood that we are saying that a different law is followed for politicians.’
Wrong example will be set: Tushar Mehta
Mehta said that granting bail to Kejriwal on the basis of the current elections would set a wrong precedent and others would also request similar exemption. He said, ‘The court is only referring to the unavoidable situation for a person. If tomorrow a grocery shop owner or a farmer comes and wants relief in some matter, then the government lawyer will not be able to argue the case. I know these arguments are harsh.
Kejriwal would not have been arrested if…: Mehta
He said that as soon as the court considers giving relief to Kejriwal for elections, it will create a separate category for politicians. He said, ‘At present around 5,000 cases related to MPs are pending across the country. Will all of them be released on bail? Is a farmer less important, for whom there is a season of harvesting and sowing? Mehta said that if Kejriwal had cooperated in the investigation and had not ignored the nine summons, he would not have been arrested.
The Solicitor General urged the bench not to make an exception for Kejriwal as it would send a wrong message and demoralize the common man. He said, ‘Campaigning in elections is a luxury for a leader, but harvesting and sowing is not a luxury for a farmer. This is his livelihood.
During the hearing of about three hours, the bench said that Kejriwal is not a habitual criminal. The court said, ‘He is the Chief Minister of Delhi and an elected leader. Elections are taking place. This is an extraordinary situation. It is not that he is a habitual criminal. Normally, Lok Sabha elections are held every five years.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, presented the statements of witnesses and accused in the case in the court. After hearing the arguments and considering the note given by Raju, the bench asked why the ED took so much time to investigate the case. The court asked the investigating agency to submit files related to the case before and after the arrest of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. Later, the bench also sought files of the period before Kejriwal’s arrest, which are in several volumes.
‘Initially Kejriwal was not at the center of investigation’
Raju told the court that initially Kejriwal was not at the center of the investigation and later his role became clear. He claimed that Kejriwal had stayed in a luxurious seven-star hotel during the 2022 Goa Assembly elections and a part of the bill was paid by the General Administration Department of the Delhi government. Kejriwal’s main petition challenging the arrest is pending because it has not been heard.
The case pertains to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and implementation of the Excise Policy of the Delhi Government for 2021-22. This policy was later canceled.
Tags: Arvind kejriwal, Delhi liquor scam, Enforcement directorate
FIRST PUBLISHED: May 8, 2024, 05:49 IST