Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Kejriwal in Excise Policy Scam Case: A Step Towards Upholding Personal Liberty
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a case related to the alleged excise policy scam, ensuring his release from jail. This decision follows the bail he had already received in a money laundering case pursued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, comes as a significant relief for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) just ahead of the Haryana assembly elections, with all senior party members accused in the case now out on bail.
The court applied the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” The bench noted that Kejriwal satisfied the three conditions necessary for granting bail: he has no criminal antecedents, is not a flight risk, and poses no threat of witness or evidence tampering. However, the court imposed specific conditions for the bail. Kejriwal has been barred from visiting the Chief Minister’s office or the Delhi Secretariat and is restricted from signing official files unless necessary for approval from the Lieutenant Governor. Furthermore, he must attend every trial court hearing unless granted an exemption and is prohibited from making public comments about the case’s merits. A bail bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties of the same amount was also mandated.
Despite agreeing on granting bail, the judges presented differing views on the arrest’s legitimacy. Justice Surya Kant found that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had followed appropriate procedures during the arrest, while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the necessity and timing of the arrest, suggesting it appeared intended to undermine the bail granted in the ED case.
Justice Bhuyan pointed out that the CBI had not deemed it necessary to arrest Kejriwal for nearly two years since the registration of the case on August 17, 2022, until June 26, 2024. It was only after Kejriwal received bail in the ED case that the CBI decided to take him into custody, raising suspicions about the motives behind the arrest. He argued that this action by the CBI called into question the timing and necessity of Kejriwal’s detention.
The court also emphasized the importance of personal liberty, stating that bail applications should be promptly assessed based on their merit rather than being bogged down by procedural technicalities. It underscored that protecting individual liberty is a vital right under the Constitution. The Supreme Court had earlier granted bail to other AAP leaders, including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, as well as the party’s former communications in-charge Vijay Nair, in the liquor policy case. The bench agreed with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s plea that Kejriwal should be granted bail like the other accused in the case.
Justice Kant, while acknowledging the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest, expressed concern about prolonged incarceration during the trial, which could infringe upon his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. With 224 witnesses still to be examined and extensive documentation involved, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The court also noted that all relevant evidence was already in CBI’s possession, reducing the risk of Kejriwal tampering with evidence or fleeing the country.
Justice Kant further emphasized that courts should lean toward upholding liberty unless the release of an individual threatens societal values, disrupts the trial, or undermines the criminal justice system. In the end, the bail granted to Kejriwal signifies the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights and ensuring that personal liberty is not sacrificed without substantial justification.