A file picture of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s.
Supreme Court on June 24 lament reluctance to interfere at once with the stay of bail granted to the Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal by the Delhi High Court which he inquired why his freedom has been curtailed whereas a trial court has upheld his personal liberty in an excise policy case.
Justice Manoj Misra leading a Vacation Bench dismisses it, and observes “If we pass an order, it would be like prejudging the issue.”
“But why can’t I be free? The trial court judgment of June 20 is in my favor…This is a question of personal liberty. I am the Chief Minister of Delhi. I am not a flight risk nor am I going to abscond… How can bail, once granted, be stay?” Mr. Kejriwal’s lawyer senior advocate A.M. Singhvi responded.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had last week appealed against the June 20 bail order and immediately procured an interim stay order stated that tomorrow itself probably on June 25th this High Court will pronounce its judgment on Mr.Kejriwal’s bail. The High Court had reserved Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the ED maintained before the Supreme Court that they should await pronouncement from the High Court on that appeal.
Justice Misra also agreed saying that it would be more appropriate if they wait till such time when judgment is pronounce by the high court. It then scheduled it for hearing on Monday next though; it was re-fix for today.
“What will we pass an order now? How do we know what does High Court have in its mind?” Justice Misra asked.
In spite of that, the Bench agreed that it is quite unusual for a High Court to reserve orders in a case affecting personal liberty.
“Normally orders are not reserve. They are pass at the hearing itself, on the spot. So it is a bit unusual, we will have it day after,” said Justice Misra orally.
Mr. Singhvi wondered why Supreme Court had to be so “deferential” to High Court by waiting for its order. When latter had paused Mr.Kejriwal’s bail without waiting even for uploading of trial court judgment.
“Bail granted and bail cancelled are two different things… It is unprecedented to pause a bail order on the very first day of hearing… The High Court passed an order of interim stay on the oral mentioning of Mr Raju without even waiting for the trial court order to be upload… We should not have suffered a stay at all. This is a question of personal liberty,” Mr. Singhvi argue.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, also appearing for Mr Kejriwal said that this “balance of convenience” was in favor of Chief Minister. The trial court had used its judicial discretion to grant him bail on June 20. The trial judge had heard both sides in detail. It records submissions made by lawyers and reasons given for granting bail. There are over five paragraphs dedicate to grounds from which trial court judge has granted bail
“There is a judicial pronouncement granting him bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act… The Supreme Court had also granted him interim bail on May 10 to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections,” Mr. Chaudhari said.
He submitted that there were various reasons give by the Supreme Court in May regarding. Mr. Kejriwal, like the fact that he has no criminal record and was arrested only on 21st March, 2024 after the excise policy case was registered on August 2022.
Mr. Mehta countered that this was see as a high-profile case by the trial judge.
“Everybody is an aam aadmi before the court. The ED continuously asked the trial court to cut short its arguments. It did not go through the papers,” Mr. Mehta argued.
At one stage, however, during the proceedings. Mr Singhvi asked ED how it “compensate me [Mr Kejriwal] for loss of time in liberty”.
