RECENT INTERIM BAIL JUDGEMENT FOR MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL: ACCLAIM OR CRITIC?

 RECENT INTERIM BAIL JUDGEMENT FOR MR. ARVIND KEJRIWAL:

ACCLAIM OR CRITIC?

Authors: Abhishek A. Aghav, Tejas S. Kotkar, Shreya R. Boke.

Students of Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad.

The recent judgement granting interim bail to Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, citing the ongoing

general elections, has raised significant concerns. This decision appears to be at odds

with established legal principles and sets a potentially perilous precedent.

Grounds for Bail: A Deviation from Norms:

Interim bail is typically granted on humanitarian grounds. Situations warranting such

relief include severe illness of the accused or close family members, or urgent personal

matters like attending last rites of close relatives. The rationale behind interim bail is to

address immediate and pressing personal circumstances, not to facilitate political

activities.

The court's decision to grant Mr. Kejriwal interim bail to participate in the general

elections is questionable. Participation in elections, while a democratic right, is not an

immediate humanitarian need. Allowing bail on these grounds risks undermining the

integrity of the judicial process and the principle that legal relief should not be

influenced by political considerations.

Bail Jurisprudence and Extraneous Factors:

Interim bail should be granted based on established principles of bail jurisprudence,

not extraneous factors such as ongoing elections. The inclusion of the election as a

reason for bail is unprecedented and unusual. The Supreme Court's order does not

follow established precedents in bail matters.

Lack of Precedent and Unusual Order:

In similar high-profile cases, such as those involving Jayalalithaa and Lalu Yadav,

courts have refused bail during election periods. These precedents highlight the

unusual nature of the court's decision in Mr. Kejriwal's case. The decision to grant bail

on the grounds of participating in an election is not supported by previous judicial

decisions, making this order particularly unusual.

Historical Precedents:

Historically, courts have taken a stricter stance on bail for individuals involved in

serious allegations, especially during election periods. In the cases of Jayalalithaa and

Lalu Yadav, bail was refused despite the elections, reflecting a more stringent

approach. This makes the interim bail granted to Mr. Kejriwal even more extraordinary

and controversial.

Allegations and Concerns:

There are serious allegations against Mr. Kejriwal, including the destruction of

evidence and non-cooperation with investigative agencies. Reports suggest that he has

allegedly destroyed phones and withheld crucial information, such as passwords,

which are vital for the ongoing investigation. Given these accusations, the decision to

grant interim bail appears lenient and raises doubts about the commitment to ensuring

a thorough and unimpeded investigation.

Furthermore, Mr. Kejriwal has reportedly avoided nine summonses from the

Enforcement Directorate (ED) since October 2023, showing a pattern of non-

compliance and contempt for the legal process. His behaviour challenges the integrity

of the judicial system and highlights why granting bail in such circumstances is

problematic.

Precedent and Its Implications:

The judgement sets a peril precedent. If participating in elections is accepted as a valid

ground for interim bail, it opens the floodgates for other accused individuals, including

those facing serious charges, to seek similar relief. This could include individuals with

anti-national sentiments or those involved in separatist activities.

In a country like India, where elections are frequent and democracy is vibrant, allowing

bail on the grounds of election participation could lead to a scenario where accused

persons regularly exploit this provision to evade custody. This undermines the legal

process and the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to

be done.

Judicial Conditions and Their Effectiveness:

The Honourable Supreme Court has imposed certain conditions on Mr. Kejriwal's

interim bail, aiming to restrain his activities and ensure he does not interfere with the

investigation. However, these conditions, while necessary, highlight the court's own

awareness of the risks posed by his release.

If the court itself sees the need for stringent conditions, it underscores the argument

that granting bail may not have been appropriate in the first place.

Conclusion:

While the judiciary must balance individual rights with the need for justice, granting

interim bail to Mr. Kejriwal on the grounds of election participation raises significant

concerns. It deviates from traditional humanitarian grounds, overlooks serious

allegations of evidence tampering, and sets a troubling precedent that could be

exploited by others facing serious charges. The decision could erode public trust in the

legal system and compromise the integrity of the judicial process. The judiciary must

ensure that justice is not only served but also perceived to be impartial and free from

political influence.