In order to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is requesting his release from jail after being detained by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case.
New Delhi: Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi, was detained on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case related to the purported liquor policy scam. He is requesting to be released from jail to campaign in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on his request for interim bail today.
Arvind Kejriwal’s bail is opposed by ED
In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on Thursday, the ED refuted Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal, arguing that everyone is entitled to the same protections under the law and that running for office in the Lok Sabha elections is not a basic, constitutional, or even legal right.
The investigation agency claimed that no political figure had ever been given bail in order to campaign and that allowing Mr. Kejriwal to leave prison in order to advocate for AAP candidates would be a bad precedent.
The ED said in its petition that the court had stated while addressing the bail request of former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who is also an accused in the same case, that the rules apply equally to all individuals and organizations, including the State.
The agency noted that Mr. Kejriwal had requested temporary bail mainly to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections. It stated that “it is relevant to note that the right to campaign is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right.”
On May 7, a court made up of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had reserved its decision regarding Mr. Kejriwal’s temporary release. As the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Mr. Kejriwal is presently being held under judicial custody in Tihar prison.
The hearing on Mr. Kejriwal’s request to be released from custody has been broken into two sessions by the bench. While the first portion of his appeal challenges his arrest by the central investigative agency and requests that it be deemed “illegal,” the secondary portion concerns the granting of temporary release in light of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
The agency also contended that since there have been 123 elections in the previous five years, no politician can be detained in court because polls are conducted all year round. If Mr. Kejriwal is granted temporary bail to continue campaigning, the agency argues.
Reiterating its position from the last hearing, the ED said that campaigning is a necessary component of a politician’s job and that small farmers and merchants are entitled to temporary release in order to fulfill their obligations to the law. Additionally, it emphasized that Mr. Kejriwal is not even running in the current elections.
According to the agency, if the Delhi Chief Minister was granted bail, it would create a precedent that would allow “all unscrupulous politicians” to commit crimes, then avoid inquiry by claiming to be campaigning for an election.
Also Read⬇️
Joe Biden on Donald Trump’s immunity ruling: America does not have any kings.
The Final Supreme Court Hearing Regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail
During the last hearing, the Supreme Court declared that it would not consider the petitioner’s political affiliation. The bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that the main concern was determining if an extraordinary situation called for temporary release. The Delhi chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, was elected, and the Supreme Court ruled that he is not a repeat offender.
The AAP chief’s arrest was upheld by the Delhi High Court on April 9, stating that there was no illegality and that the probe agency had “little option” after he ignored several summonses and declined to cooperate with the investigation into purported irregularities in the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy 2021–2022. A Delhi court had earlier on Tuesday given Mr. Kejriwal till May 20 to remain in judicial detention in the money laundering case.
“There are elections… these are extraordinary circumstances and he is not a habitual offender,” the justices had stated. The bench also questioned the ED on why they did not take action against the chief minister and his party for two years.
