Supreme Court to Consider Interim Bail for Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi Excise Policy Case

Supreme Court to Consider Interim Bail for Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi Excise Policy Case

Supreme Court Indicates May 7 Hearing for Arvind Kejriwal's Interim Bail

The Supreme Court of India has indicated that it may hear arguments on the interim bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on May 7, considering the ongoing 2024 general elections. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, suggested that since arguments on Kejriwal's plea against arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and his subsequent remand in the excise policy case might take some time, it could consider the question of interim bail on Tuesday.

Supreme Court's Cautionary Note on Arvind Kejriwal's Interim Bail

The bench clarified that no final decision had been made yet and that it was simply informing all parties that interim relief might be considered if the hearing was likely to be prolonged. The court emphasized that it would hear both sides before making any decision on interim bail.

Legal Battle Unfolds: Arvind Kejriwal Challenges High Court's Decision

Arvind Kejriwal had approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that dismissed his plea against arrest by the ED and his subsequent remand in the excise policy case. The High Court had rejected his plea for release from jail, stating that his absence from nine ED summons over six months undermined any claims of special privilege as Chief Minister.

Kejriwal's Legal Saga: Arrest, Allegations, and Political Ramifications

Kejriwal's arrest by the ED on March 21 was in connection with a money laundering probe related to alleged irregularities in the now-canceled Delhi excise policy 2021-22. He had argued that his arrest, following the announcement of the General Elections, was motivated by extraneous considerations.

Significance of Supreme Court's Deliberation

The Supreme Court's consideration of interim bail for Kejriwal highlights the intersection of legal proceedings with political events, particularly in the context of elections. The case underscores the importance of fair and impartial legal processes, especially for public figures, and the need to uphold the rule of law in such matters.