According to the Supreme Court, it will watch to see if the disputes surrounding Arvind Kejriwal’s bail request are resolved. “We will provide you with a date for the day following tomorrow,” it stated. If it isn’t feasible, we’ll hold it sometime the following week.”
According to the Supreme Court, it will watch to see if the disputes surrounding Arvind Kejriwal’s bail request are resolved. “We will provide you with a date for the day following tomorrow,” it stated. If it isn’t feasible, we’ll hold it sometime the following week.”
Kejriwal’s petition contested the April 10 verdict of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed his appeal against the ED arrest. Kejriwal has been in custody since his arrest on March 21.
“Arvind Kejriwal has no Ministry, no portfolio, no sign, no responsibility, so why should he be granted the bail,” the ED had said in opposition to the bail.
The matter was decided by a two-judge bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
Justice Khanna drew attention to the fact that the court has previously declared that Kejriwal is the elected Chief Minister of Delhi and that he is not a habitual offender. He out that these are “extraordinary circumstances” and that the elections are only held once every five years.
Prior to the elections, the Supreme Court had said that it would provide AAP leader Arvind Kejrwal temporary reprieve. The Supreme Court informed Kejriwal’s attorney, nevertheless, that the case would only be granted temporary status with the stipulation that he would not be carrying out official duties because it would have cascading implications.
As the court heard the Delhi Chief Minister’s bail request, it said, “We do not want interference at all in the working of the government.” The Supreme Court stated, “It would not have granted any interim relief if elections had not taken place.”
“This is a unique circumstance. It’s not as though he commits crimes frequently. Every five years, there is an election. It differs from crop harvesting, which takes place every four to six months. The bench stated that we must give it top priority to decide whether or not to release him in the meantime.
The Enforcement Directorate, however, rejected the court’s recommendation, claiming that granting the bail would set a bad example for others.
“As opposed to regular citizens, politicians do not have any unique rights. It asked, “Should all MPs and MLAs who are being prosecuted be released on bail?
Senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi retorted, asking if a politician could receive preferential treatment over the average person. as 5,000 people are being prosecuted, what would happen if they all decided to run for office? The ED cannot be held responsible for the individuals’ decision to run for office; additionally, as no evidence has been presented, can interim bail be granted at this point?
The SC had already said, “We may grant or we may not grant,” to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), advising them to be ready for the hearing. However, we have to be approachable to you so that nobody is caught off guard.”