Supreme Court to Deliver Verdict on Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Plea in Delhi Excise Policy Case
The Supreme Court is set to announce its verdict today on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea and his challenge against the arrest in the Delhi excise policy case. Kejriwal had approached the apex court after the Delhi High Court’s ruling on August 5, which upheld his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the case. The court’s decision will be a crucial moment for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, who has faced multiple legal challenges surrounding alleged corruption in the excise policy for 2021-22.
As per the Supreme Court’s schedule, a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant is expected to pronounce the verdict at 10:30 a.m. The bench, which also includes Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, had reserved its ruling on September 5 after hearing detailed arguments from both sides.
Kejriwal’s legal team filed two distinct petitions—one against his denial of bail and the other challenging the validity of his arrest by the CBI. The arrest, which took place on June 26, has been a significant event in the ongoing investigation into the alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s excise policy. The CBI claims that various concessions were granted to liquor license holders in violation of rules, leading to losses for the state exchequer.
The case has far-reaching political implications. Kejriwal, the national convener of AAP, was a key figure in drafting and executing the excise policy, which has since been scrapped. The Delhi High Court had earlier maintained that there was sufficient evidence to justify his arrest and that the arrest itself wasn’t illegal. The high court further stated that Kejriwal could seek bail from a lower trial court. Kejriwal, however, chose to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of his arrest and asking for relief from the top court.
Additionally, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a money laundering case linked to the same excise policy matter, accusing Kejriwal and other officials of financial misconduct. The ED’s investigation runs parallel to the CBI’s probe, focusing on the alleged monetary benefits extracted from the policy modifications. Kejriwal was previously arrested by the ED in March but was granted interim bail in July by the Supreme Court.
At the core of the case is whether undue advantages were given to private players through the formulation and implementation of the excise policy. Kejriwal and his legal team have consistently denied any wrongdoing, arguing that his arrest was politically motivated. His counsel emphasized that the arrest was unjustified and that all the evidence in the case could have been gathered without taking the extreme step of arresting a sitting Chief Minister.
The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, argued that Kejriwal should have first sought bail from the trial court before approaching the Supreme Court. This stance was reinforced by the fact that in a similar case linked to money laundering charges, the Supreme Court had previously directed Kejriwal to first approach the lower courts for bail. Kejriwal’s team, however, maintains that the case requires immediate intervention from the Supreme Court due to the seriousness of the allegations and the political context in which the case is unfolding.
The excise policy case has become a significant issue for the Aam Aadmi Party, as it directly involves its leader. The outcome of today’s verdict could have significant consequences for both the party’s future and Kejriwal’s political career.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its judgment, political observers and the general public are keenly watching for the outcome. Kejriwal’s supporters hope that the court will grant him bail, while his opponents argue that the case reflects deeper issues of corruption in governance. Whatever the result, today’s decision will be pivotal in shaping the narrative around the excise policy case and Kejriwal’s leadership in Delhi. The verdict will also set a precedent for how legal challenges involving high-ranking political figures are handled in the country.