Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Scam Case

On July 12, the Supreme Court‘s division bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the context of the liquor scam money laundering case.

The ruling raised questions about whether the court’s decision could have been expedited earlier by disentangling it from the intricate legality of his arrest, which is now slated for further deliberation by a larger bench.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Kejriwal on March 21 but the Supreme Court intervened first on May 10, granting him interim bail to participate in Lok Sabha election campaigning, with a stipulation to surrender on June 2.

Despite Kejriwal’s plea for an extension due to health reasons, the Court declined to prolong his bail duration.

The recent interim bail on July 12 came with stringent conditions restricting the Chief Minister from attending his office and executing official paperwork.

The case stemmed from Kejriwal’s appeal against the Delhi High Court‘s dismissal of his challenge to the legality of his arrest by the ED, with the trial court subsequently granting him bail on June 20.

The ED’s accusation linked Kejriwal to the alleged criminal conspiracy involving the Delhi excise policy for liquor sales, asserting that the scheme enriched public servants and inflicted substantial losses on the government.

Notably, Kejriwal was included as an accused in the ED’s seventh supplementary complaint, alleging that he demanded Rs. 100 crore, a portion of which funded his party’s campaign in the Goa Assembly election.

Subsequent legal proceedings saw the Delhi High Court nullifying the trial court’s bail order, prompting the CBI’s arrest under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the same case even as the Supreme Court remained circumspect of the High Court’s stay.

The recent Supreme Court’s verdict has cast a shadow over the ED’s position, shedding doubt on the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest while potentially aiding his forthcoming legal battles.

Kejriwal capitalised on his challenge to the arrest’s legality, citing violations of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act‘s provisions, particularly in notifying the accused promptly of the grounds for arrest.

The ruling questioned the ED’s contention that judicial assessment was impermissible, affirming the paramountcy of judicial review in assessing the legitimacy of the arrestee’s involvement in money laundering.

Refuting the ED’s refusal to disclose the ‘reasons to believe’, the judgment underscored the necessity for valid grounds for arrest based on incontestable material.

The bench weighed Kejriwal’s argument on the absence of a necessity for his arrest on March 21 against established jurisprudence, compelling the ED to adopt a consistent and impartial approach in enforcing arrests under the PMLA.

Although offering limited relief to Kejriwal, the bench’s decision to refer crucial questions to a larger bench attests to the nuanced legal intricacies involved in his case.