By: Ashutosh Vinay, Sanskriti University
On Thursday, Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail in the money laundering case related to the liquor policy scam. Vacation Judge Nyay Bindu at Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order which was reserved earlier in the day. ED’s plea for stay on the bail order was rejected and Kejriwal was allowed to walk out of custody.
Background of the Case
Kejriwal was arrested by ED on March 21. This was a major twist in the investigation of the liquor policy scam. According to ED, the scam involves illegal financial transactions where Kejriwal and his party AAP allegedly took 1 billion rupees (approximately 12 million dollars) as a bribe from liquor contractors. These contractors were allegedly favored in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi excise policy which was designed to give profits to select private companies.
This case got a lot of public and media attention because of its timing and the accused. Kejriwal is a prominent opposition leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi and was arrested just before the national elections in which he was a main challenger to PM Narendra Modi. The arrest led to allegations of political vendetta with opposition parties accusing the Modi government of using central agencies to target political opponents. Despite these allegations, ED maintained that their investigation was based on concrete evidence and not political considerations. The complexity and high stakes of the case make it a big issue in Indian politics and law enforcement.
Legal Arguments
The arguments in the case were heated. ED was represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. ED presented a series of allegations against Kejriwal. ED had concrete evidence of his involvement in the scam. ED’s evidence included cash transactions managed by co-accused Chanpreet Singh who allegedly paid hotel bills to Kejriwal and that shows a financial link to the proceeds of the crime. ED also argued that Kejriwal’s refusal to give his phone password was obstruction.
On the other hand, Kejriwal’s defence led by Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari strongly countered these allegations. Chaudhari argued that Kejriwal was not an accused in the CBI case, he highlighted that there was no direct charge against him in other related cases. He also questioned the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest and said it was strategically done before the general elections and that shows the political motive behind ED’s action. Chaudhari also doubted the ED’s evidence and said the cash transactions and phone chats presented were not conclusive and not enough to prove the guilt. This confrontation of legal strategies shows the complex play of law, politics, and procedural justice in high-profile cases.
Arrest and Court
Kejriwal was arrested by ED on March 21. This was a big moment in the investigation of the alleged liquor policy scam. ED accused him and his party of taking 1 billion rupees as bribes from liquor contractors who were given undue benefits in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi excise policy. The timing of the arrest just before the national elections led to widespread opposition from other parties who saw it as a political vendetta by PM Narendra Modi’s government.
After the arrest, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail in May and allowed him to contest the elections. This interim bail was till June 1 after which Kejriwal surrendered on June 2. The legal battle continued with both sides presenting their arguments and the case became highly publicized and contentious
Allegations and Defence
The case against Kejriwal is full of multiple allegations and counter-allegations. According to ED co-accused Chanpreet Singh received huge cash from entrepreneurs and paid hotel bills to Kejriwal and that shows a direct financial link to the proceeds of the crime. ASG SV Raju representing ED argued that they have concrete evidence of Kejriwal’s involvement and that his refusal to give his phone password was an obstruction of the investigation.
ED also alleged that Vijay Nair, another co-accused who has no official role in the government, was acting as a middleman for Kejriwal. Nair’s proximity to the Chief Minister was cited as evidence of Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the scam. These allegations were to show a direct link of Kejriwal with the financial irregularities done through excise policy.
Rebuttals and Arguments
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari representing Kejriwal countered ED’s allegations by saying that Kejriwal was not an accused in the CBI case. Chaudhari said ED’s allegations were baseless and political and pointed to the timing of the arrest which was just before the general elections. He said the arrest was a deliberate attempt to weaken Kejriwal’s political position during the election period.
Chaudhari also disputed the allegations against Chanpreet Singh saying there was no evidence of Singh’s actions being linked to AAP’s activities in Goa or any proceeds of crime. He said ED was relying on inconclusive evidence like unverified phone chats and unsubstantiated claims about Nair’s activities and connections. This strong defense showed the weaknesses in ED’s case and questioned the intention behind the investigation.
Broader Political Context
Kejriwal’s arrest and the court proceedings were in a highly charged political atmosphere just before the national elections. Despite BJP losing majority, PM Narendra Modi came back to power for the third time. Kejriwal’s arrest of a prominent opposition leader added to the narrative of political vendetta and opposition parties accused the Modi government of using central agencies to target its opponents.
AAP led by Kejriwal has been vocal against the Modi government. As part of the opposition coalition INDIA, AAP has been saying that the government is misusing central agencies to harass and weaken political opponents. Many opposition leaders who have faced similar raids and arrests share this view and that adds to the narrative of political vendetta.
Court’s Order and Decision
The court granted bail to Kejriwal after considering the arguments and evidence of both sides. The court rejected ED’s plea to stay on the bail order and allowed Kejriwal to walk free. Judge Nyay Bindu said the material put forth by ED including statements of approvers and witnesses who were given pardons was not credible enough to keep Kejriwal in custody.
Earlier the Delhi High Court had rejected Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest saying there was enough evidence against him. The High Court had said ED’s allegations that Kejriwal was the main conspirator and Vijay Nair was playing a key role in the illicit transactions.
Analysis of Legal Principles
The case involves important legal principles on bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Under Section 45 of PMLA, bail conditions are strict and the court has to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The court granting bail means these conditions were met or the evidence was not enough to deny bail.
This is how the judiciary approaches high-profile political cases and the ongoing debate on the use of investigative agencies in Indian politics. It shows the difficulty of prosecuting complex financial cases and the need for strong evidence to get a conviction.
Stay on The Bail Order
On June 21, the Delhi High Court stayed the bail granted to Kejriwal. Stay in till the final order on the stay petition filed by ED.
A vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain passed the order after issuing notice to the petition filed by ED challenging the trial court’s order granting bail to Kejriwal. The matter was heard urgently after ED’s counsel made an urgent mention to the court.
ED’s Submissions
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari for Kejriwal raised a preliminary objection to the matter being listed during vacations, saying the trial court had granted bail through a detailed order. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said the bail order was “perverse” as it went against Section 45 of PMLA. Raju said the trial court did not give ED a full opportunity to present its case and asked them to be brief. He also said Kejriwal’s lawyers had raised new points in rejoinder and ED was not given the opportunity to counter them.
ED said the trial court had dismissed their reply as “bulky” without examining it properly. Raju was shocked and said ED had produced evidence including statements against Kejriwal which were not considered at all.
Kejriwal’s Submissions
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Kejriwal said ED’s approach was wrong, an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely while the investigating agency is collecting evidence. Singhvi said ED’s claim of not being given the opportunity to present their case was baseless, the hearing lasted for five hours and ED took most of the time.
Singhvi clarified that the earlier Delhi High Court order was on the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest, not the bail. He said the Supreme Court had given liberty to Kejriwal to move the trial court for bail and the SC’s order in July would be the final word on the matter.
Singhvi said staying the bail order would amount to cancellation of bail which requires a higher threshold. He said Kejriwal had complied with the interim bail conditions and surrendered on June 2, with no flight risk. Singhvi also questioned the ED’s evidence and said the trial court had exercised its discretion while granting bail after considering the case thoroughly.
Conclusion
Arvind Kejriwal’s bail in the liquor policy scam is a big milestone in a long legal and political battle. The case against Kejriwal involving allegations of huge financial misappropriation has exposed the nexus between law enforcement and political strategy in India. While the court granting bail gives Kejriwal some relief for the moment, the bigger consequences of the case are many.
The case will be in the centre of debate on use of central agencies, balance of power and pursuit of justice in India. The outcome of this case will have long-term impact on politics and the functioning of institutions in the country so it’s a must-watch for both legal experts and political commentators.
About the Author
