EnseMedia
“Insurance Arrest By CBI”: Arvind Kejriwal Argues For Bail In Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petitions seeking bail and challenging his arrest in the CBI case linked to the capital’s now-scrapped liquor policy. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan is hearing the matter.
The top court has earlier granted interim bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against him, but he remains in jail in the CBI case. This means that if the Supreme Court gives him the relief, the Delhi Chief Minister will walk out of prison after over five months.
Details of Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest
The CBI arrested Mr. Kejriwal on June 26. The Delhi High Court on August 5 upheld his arrest as legal and said the CBI was able to establish that the AAP leader could influence witnesses.
Appearing for Mr. Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi said this is an unprecedented matter. The Delhi Chief Minister, he said, has got relief twice under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The CBI, he said, had done as “insurance arrest”.
The Argument by Abhishek Singhvi
Mr. Singhvi detailed that the CBI had arrested Mr. Kejriwal after two years. “Three court orders are in my favour. This is an insurance arrest, so that he can be kept in jail,” Mr. Singhvi argued.
Saying the Supreme Court needs to address three questions, he enumerated them as follows:
- Is there a flight risk?
- Will he tamper with evidence?
- Will he influence witnesses?
The only basis for CBI’s arrest, he stated, was that Mr. Kejriwal was not cooperating. This issue, Mr. Singhvi said, had been addressed in the past judgments that say an accused cannot be expected to incriminate himself.
The Triple Test for Bail
“Arvind Kejriwal is a constitutional functionary and cannot be a flight risk. There can’t be tampering, there are lakhs of documents, five chargesheets have been filed. There is also no risk of influencing witnesses. The triple test for bail is in my favour,” Mr. Singhvi asserted.
Legal Basis and Precedents
Based on the stringent parameters set by past legal precedent, Mr. Singhvi argued that the conditions for denying bail were not met in Mr. Kejriwal’s case. He stated that mere non-cooperation should not become a basis for arrest when significant documentation and multi-level evidence collection have already occurred.
Furthermore, he noted that maintaining a high profile does not equate to being a flight risk, especially for a sitting Chief Minister.
Impact on AAP and Delhi Governance
The continued detention of Mr. Kejriwal has had significant political and administrative impacts on Delhi governance. As the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest has sparked considerable debate over the efficacy of the state machinery in light of high-profile incarceration.
The opposition has used this arrest as a rallying point to question the integrity and capability of the AAP governance model, while supporters argue it is a politically motivated move to destabilize their administration in Delhi.
Political Repercussions
Several political pundits believe that the “insurance arrest” was a strategy to weaken the AAP’s influence at a crucial time. Such arrests, particularly when involving key leaders, can affect electoral strategies and public opinion.
The case has also resulted in many AAP supporters coming out in vocal support of their leader, thereby increasing political activity and engagement among the AAP cadre and base.
Legal Community’s Perspective
The legal fraternity has been observing this case closely. Many renowned lawyers and legal experts have commented on the unprecedented nature of Mr. Kejriwal’s case. The fact that multiple courts granted bail under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, only for the CBI to arrest him again, raises several legal questions.
Opinions from Legal Experts
Senior advocates and constitutional lawyers have spoken about the need to reassess certain systemic procedures within the CBI’s operative framework. They argue that the concept of “insurance arrest” tarnishes the justice system’s overall credibility.
Legal experts also indicate that this case might set a significant precedent for how bail matters are approached in high-profile political cases henceforth.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court deliberates on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail petitions, the implications of their decision will extend beyond the immediate liberty of the Delhi Chief Minister. This case encapsulates several critical issues concerning judicial procedures, political pressures, and the broader ramifications for governance in Delhi.
For now, all eyes remain on the apex court as the legal battle continues to unfold.
