On Friday, the Supreme Court granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail the exception. However, restrictions on him entering the chief minister’s office and signing files will remain in place.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered two judgments after reserving their verdict. Justice Bhuyan emphasized that courts must ensure the prosecution and trial process do not become a form of punishment. He questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) arrest of Kejriwal, suggesting it was aimed at hindering his bail in a related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. Bhuyan further stated that “non-cooperation does not equate to self-incrimination,” criticizing the CBI’s actions. He also remarked that the CBI must shed the perception of being a “caged parrot” and uphold its integrity.
While Justice Bhuyan expressed concerns over the restrictions on Kejriwal’s access to the chief minister’s office and file signing, he eventually agreed to uphold them, as previously set by another bench in the ED case.
Kejriwal had challenged the August 5 decision of the Delhi High Court, which upheld his CBI arrest and dismissed his bail plea due to his bypassing the trial court.
Earlier hearings had seen the bench emphasize the importance of ensuring the criminal justice system’s evolution while maintaining the authority of lower courts. The CBI had warned that a decision in Kejriwal’s favor could set a dangerous precedent. The bench reassured that its ruling would preserve the integrity of judicial institutions. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed that bail should be the norm, even in cases involving stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In a landmark ruling on Monday, the court stated that a person already in custody for one offense could still seek anticipatory bail for another offense, underscoring the importance of safeguarding personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further highlighted the need for a fair and speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21, cautioning against turning the legal process into a punishment in itself.
Kejriwal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the CBI violated procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by arresting him. Despite receiving bail from the ED, Kejriwal has been in custody since June 26, following his CBI arrest. Singhvi asserted that the CBI’s arrest, based on non-cooperation, was unjustified, given that for two years, the agency had not deemed it necessary.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Manish Sisodia case, Singhvi argued it would be unfair to send Kejriwal back to the trial court for bail, comparing it to a “snake and ladder” game.
In defense, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju maintained that the CBI followed proper legal procedures. He criticized Kejriwal for bypassing the trial court and directly approaching the high court, accusing him of seeking “special treatment” and behaving as if he were an “extraordinary person.”
In his closing argument, Singhvi questioned how non-cooperation could justify an arrest, stressing that Kejriwal was not a “hardened criminal” and his arrest was both unwarranted and unnecessary.
