The Supreme Court has delivered its verdict on the petition challenging the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The Court has granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister.
The Court said:
Considering the right to life and since the matter has been referred to a larger bench, we direct that Arvind Kejriwal be released on interim bail.
The petition contests his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the alleged excise policy scam in Delhi.
The bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta pronounced the judgment. The bench had reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s petition on May 17.
The Court said:
We have not reviewed the issue of bail, but we have examined the parameters of Section 19 of the PMLA. We have clarified the difference between Section 19 and Section 45. Section 19 involves the subjective opinion of officers and is subject to judicial review, whereas Section 45 pertains to the court’s own exercise of authority.
The Court further ruled:
We have determined that the reasons to believe, as required, align with Section 19 of the PMLA. However, we have examined the need and necessity of the arrest. We felt that whether the need and necessity of arrest can be interpreted within Section 19 based on the doctrine of proportionality should be referred to a larger bench.
What did the High Court say?
The High Court upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, stating that there was no illegality in the process, and that the Enforcement Directorate had no other option after his repeated refusal to cooperate in the investigation.
The Complete Timeline
The Enforcement Directorate arrested the Chief Minister on March 21 in a money laundering case. A lower court granted him bail on June 20 on a personal bond of one lakh rupees. However, the Enforcement Directorate approached the Delhi High Court the next day, arguing that the lower court’s order granting bail was unilateral and incorrect. Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation also arrested Kejriwal on June 26 in a corruption case related to the alleged excise policy scam.
