Supreme Court grants Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal bail
During a previous hearing, a bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that the judgment would contribute to the evolution of criminal law
The Supreme Court on Friday granted Arvind Kejriwal bail, reiterating bail is the rule, and jail an exception while underlining restrictions on him on going to the chief minister’s office and signing files will continue.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan gave two judgments days after reserving their verdict. “All courts must ensure that the prosecution and the process of trial does not become a form of punishment in itself,” said Justice Bhuyan. He questioned the timing and manner in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Kejriwal. He said the CBI’s arrest was perhaps only to frustrate the grant of bail to Kejriwal in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. “Non-cooperation cannot mean self-incrimination, and therefore, Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI on this ground was impermissible,” he said. He underlined CBI must ensure that the perception of it being a “caged parrot” is discarded. “It must be above board.”
Justice Bhuyan expressed reservations about restraining Kejriwal from entering the chief minister office or signing files but eventually agreed with these conditions, as imposed by another bench while granting him bail in the ED case.
Kejriwal challenged the August 5 decision of the Delhi high court, which upheld his arrest by the CBI and refused to entertain his plea for bail because Kejriwal did not go to the trial court first.
During a previous hearing, the bench of justices Kant and Bhuyan underscored that the judgment would contribute to the evolution of criminal law while ensuring that it does not demoralise the subordinate judiciary. The court’s observation came after CBI warned that a decision in Kejriwal’s favour might set a precedent that could undermine the authority of subordinate courts.
The bench stressed that its ruling would be framed in a way that preserves the integrity of all judicial institutions. In a series of recent judgments, the top court reaffirmed the principle that bail should be the norm, with jail being an exception, even in cases involving stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court has also urged lower courts to exercise caution when staying bail orders, highlighting the importance of upholding personal liberty.
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark judgment that a person already in custody for one offence can still seek anticipatory bail for a different offence, asserting that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be safeguarded unless specifically restricted by law. In another order on the same day, the court underscored that an accused is entitled to a fair and speedy trial, as guaranteed by Article 21, and that the legal process should not be allowed to turn into a form of punishment.
Kejriwal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged his arrest by CBI saying that procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were breached. Kejriwal has remained in custody since June 26, after his arrest by CBI, despite previously being granted bail in a related case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Singhvi argued that the CBI’s decision to arrest Kejriwal was unwarranted, particularly given that for two years since the registration of the case in 2022, the investigative agency had not found it necessary to take such action. Kejriwal’s legal team highlighted that his arrest, allegedly for non-cooperation, did not meet the requirements under Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC, which demand sufficient cause and prior notice before arrest.
Arguing for Kejriwal on September 5, Singhvi underscored the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Manish Sisodia case, where the court granted bail and emphasised that it would be unfair to send Sisodia back to the trial court for bail, as doing so would amount to playing a “snake and ladder” game.
In response, additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju defended CBI’s actions, asserting that the federal agency followed proper procedure under CrPC. He pointed out that Kejriwal chose to bypass the trial court and directly approach the high court, arguing that “this is not the regular course” and accused Kejriwal of seeking “special treatment”. According to Raju, Kejriwal should have adhered to the legal process like any ordinary citizen, and his decision to approach higher courts prematurely was evidence of him acting as if he were a “special” and “extraordinary person”.
In his closing argument on September 5, Singhvi questioned the grounds for the arrest, particularly the accusation of non-cooperation. “How does non-cooperation amount to grounds for arrest?” he asked, emphasising that Kejriwal was not a “hardened criminal” and that his arrest was neither justified nor necessary.