“Supreme Court Warns Arvind Kejriwal: Official Duties Restricted if Granted Bail”

In Short

• Supreme Court reserves order on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea
• ED opposes bail, says it sets wrong precedent
• Court questions ED’s delay in questioning Kejriwal

The Supreme Court has made it clear that if Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, currently in jail, is granted interim bail, he will not be permitted to carry out official duties, citing concerns over potential ramifications.

However, the apex court reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s bail plea, leaving him without immediate relief.

During the hearing presided over by a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, the court indicated a fast-track approach, scheduling a date for the hearing just two days later or, if not feasible, sometime the following week, emphasizing the urgency of the matter amid ongoing elections.

Meanwhile, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi extended Kejriwal’s judicial custody until May 20 in connection with a money laundering case linked to the liquor policy issue.

The Supreme Court, addressing concerns over Kejriwal’s potential release, questioned his counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, about the nature of Kejriwal’s prospective activities if granted interim bail.

Singhvi clarified that Kejriwal, as a sitting Chief Minister, would not involve himself in matters related to the excise case but would fulfill his duties as required.

The bench, however, remained firm in its stance, asserting that it did not wish for any interference in government affairs, particularly during elections, expressing its inclination to consider interim bail solely due to the electoral context.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the unique circumstances of Kejriwal’s case, citing former Union Defence Minister George Fernandes’ successful electoral campaign from jail as a precedent for extraordinary situations during elections.

Despite the court’s inclination, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed Kejriwal’s potential interim bail, arguing against setting a precedent favoring politicians over ordinary citizens facing prosecution.

Singhvi was directed to respond to the ED’s objections, particularly regarding the question of special treatment for politicians and the delay in probing Kejriwal’s role in the case.

The bench also questioned the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, regarding the delayed investigation into Kejriwal’s involvement, to which Raju cited the need for thoroughness and caution in the investigative process.

Kejriwal’s petition to the Supreme Court challenges the legality of his arrest, alleging a motivated approach based on contradictory and belated statements from co-accused turned approvers.

The court’s deliberations come in the wake of its indication on May 3 of a potential interim bail for Kejriwal due to the ongoing electoral activities. Kejriwal’s petition seeks not only his release but also a declaration of his arrest as illegal.