NEW DELHI The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on money laundering charges linked to the excise policy case but asked him to consider whether he should step down from office in light of the allegations arraigned against him.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta underscored that Mr. Kejriwal occupies an office of influence as well as constitutional importance.
The court cannot direct an elected leader to step down from the office of a “functional” Chief Minister, Justice Khanna said.
Justice Khanna noted that it would be better if Kejriwal himself made a decision.
This is the second time the Supreme Court has allowed interim bail to Kejriwal. The first instance was on May 10, allowing the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal surrendered on June 2.
Justice Khanna said Kejriwal deserved interim bail. His rights of life and liberty were “sacrosanct”. He has been incarcerated for over 90 days.
However, the Chief Minister would not be actually released from custody. He was separately arrested by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with the excise policy case on June 25.
The judgment on Friday further referred to a larger Bench question raised by Kejriwal on the need and necessity of arresting him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
While noting that a need for interrogation cannot be the sole grounds for arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, Justice Khanna said the larger Bench ought to examine and lay down specific parameters for arrest under the PMLA.
In this regard, the court noted that arrest, currently under the PMLA, was initiated on the “subjective opinion” of the investigating officer, unlike the grant of statutory bail under Section 45 of the Act, which involved the discretion of a court of law.
One of the questions referred to in the larger Bench includes whether an accused could raise the “need and necessity of arrest” as a separate ground to quash the arrest.
PMLA arrest guidelines
The judgment came on a petition filed by Kejriwal against his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA on March 21.
The Bench reserved the petition for judgment on May 21 while allowing Mr. Kejriwal to approach the trial separately for regular bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.
Subsequently, on June 20, a Special Court granted Mr. Kejriwal statutory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. Bail under the PMLA is applied for in the Special Court under Section 45 of the Act. An accused seeking bail has to satisfy the stringent twin conditions that he is prima facie innocent and is not likely to commit an offence in the future.
But the Delhi High Court stayed the bail on June 25.
The ED has alleged Kejriwal’s involvement in channelling ₹45 crore in “kickbacks” out of a ₹100 crore in “bribes” to AAP coffers to campaign for the Goa Assembly elections in 2022.
The agency has claimed the kickbacks were sent via hawala operators, and Kejriwal was the “kingpin” behind the scam.
Senior advocate AM Singhvi, for Kejriwal, has countered these allegations, saying the ED had nothing to show that any money came to his client or was used in the Goa election campaign.
He submitted that Kejriwal’s arrest came a year and a half after the ED registered a case in August 2023. The ED had no new evidence against Kejriwal, except “zero-weight” statements recorded from accused-turned-approvers until July last year.
Singhvi had asked why the ED had waited from July 2023 till March 2024 to arrest Kejriwal.
The senior lawyer had accused the ED of suppressing evidence against Kejriwal when his rights of life and liberty were at stake.