The Supreme Court of India was hearing the bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. The hearing witnessed a heated exchange between the defense counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, and the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), SV Raju. This article examines the key arguments presented during the hearing, highlighting the ongoing tussle between the central government and the AAP government in Delhi.

The “Demoralization” Argument

ASG SV Raju, arguing for the CBI, presented a contentious argument claiming that granting bail to Kejriwal would demoralize the Delhi High Court. Raju stated that the Supreme Court’s bail order would undermine the authority of the High Court, which had upheld the CBI’s arrest of Kejriwal. This assertion triggered a sharp rebuttal from Raghav Chadha, a Rajya Sabha MP and AAP leader, who used the metaphor of the Sun rising in the East to highlight the absurdity of Raju’s argument.

Chadha’s analogy underscores the inherently flawed logic behind Raju’s claim. He posits that the judicial system is hierarchical, with the Supreme Court sitting at the apex. The Supreme Court’s rulings are binding on all lower courts, including the High Court. Therefore, granting bail to Kejriwal cannot be seen as an affront to the High Court’s decision. In fact, the Supreme Court, being the highest court, has the ultimate authority to review and overturn decisions made by lower courts.

Maintainability of the Bail Plea

The ASG, SV Raju, also questioned the maintainability of Kejriwal’s bail plea. Raju argued that since Kejriwal had previously approached the Supreme Court on his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the matter should have first been adjudicated by the trial court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier sent the case involving the ED arrest back to the trial court for its consideration.

This line of argument emphasizes the established judicial protocol requiring cases to be presented first before lower courts before being appealed to higher courts. However, the defense counsel, Abhishek Singhvi, contested the applicability of this protocol to the current situation, arguing that the current bail plea does not involve the same grounds previously raised in the ED case. Singhvi highlighted the time-sensitive nature of the current bail plea, where the trial court has already deliberated on the merits of the case. He argued against the need for further delays by sending the matter back to the trial court.

Special Treatment

Furthermore, the ASG questioned the need for special treatment in the bail plea. Raju argued that since every other person in the country would normally approach the trial court for bail, Kejriwal shouldn’t be given an exception, highlighting the “extraordinary person” status claimed for Kejriwal. This argument aimed to project Kejriwal’s legal maneuvers as unusual, even bordering on preferential treatment.

However, the defense argued that there was no legal justification for such an assumption, highlighting the legitimate exercise of a right to appeal granted under the Indian judicial system. The defense also argued that the ASG was unfairly using his position to create an impression of preferential treatment being sought by Kejriwal.

Delay in Proceedings

Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, highlighted the delays involved in the judicial proceedings. He emphasized that the issues concerning the bail plea had already been extensively examined during the remand proceedings. Sending the case back to the trial court would further prolong the judicial process, causing significant delays. Singhvi stressed that this delay would only serve to perpetuate the political conflict that is at the heart of this case. He emphasized the importance of resolving the matter in a timely and equitable manner, given that the issue had already been argued in detail.

Supreme Court Assurances

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan assured the ASG that they would ensure any judicial ruling wouldn’t demoralize any other court. This statement is notable, as it addresses the concern expressed by the ASG and emphasizes the bench’s intention to act with impartiality and judicial propriety. This assurance underscores the independence of the judicial branch, which is designed to protect the principle of separation of powers.

Tussle Between Political Parties

This court hearing provides a glimpse into the ongoing political struggle between the ruling BJP and the opposition AAP. The CBI investigation into the Delhi Excise Policy is perceived by the AAP as a politically motivated move to target Kejriwal and undermine the AAP’s rising popularity. The legal maneuverings surrounding Kejriwal’s bail application illustrate the use of legal procedures as a means of achieving political ends. The court’s final decision will likely further exacerbate this political tussle, particularly given the high stakes involved for both the BJP and the AAP.

Takeaways

The Supreme Court hearing regarding the bail plea of Arvind Kejriwal has highlighted key legal arguments surrounding bail procedures and the balance of powers within the Indian judiciary. This hearing exposes the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this case and provides a clear example of how legal battles are increasingly interwoven with political ambitions and agendas.

• The arguments presented expose the complex legal questions regarding bail procedure and judicial hierarchy within the Indian judicial system.
• The ASG’s contentious “demoralization” argument raises concerns about the perceived bias in legal arguments presented by the CBI, potentially jeopardizing the impartial functioning of the judiciary.
• The potential for delays introduced by sending the matter back to the trial court underscores the need for effective case management, prioritizing the prompt delivery of justice without causing unnecessary delays.
• The ongoing political clash between the BJP and AAP highlights the crucial role played by the Indian judiciary in upholding the rule of law and ensuring a fair balance of power.