The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy corruption case, which had been lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted key issues concerning the prolonged incarceration of the accused, with a focus on individual liberty and the role of investigative agencies.

Justice Surya Kant, in his measured and balanced approach, emphasized the fundamental principle that prolonged detention without trial amounts to an unjust deprivation of liberty. He carefully underscored that bail should not be denied merely as a punitive measure, especially when the completion of the trial is not foreseeable in the immediate future. Justice Kant's perspective reflects a deep respect for the rights of individuals, ensuring that detention does not turn into an unjust punishment before guilt is established.

While granting bail to Kejriwal, Justice Kant imposed reasonable conditions, including a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh and two sureties of the same amount. These conditions were necessary to strike a balance between safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process and upholding Kejriwal's fundamental rights. Justice Kant also reiterated the importance of ensuring that Kejriwal refrains from making public comments on the merits of the case, ensuring that the matter is not prejudiced in the public eye. Furthermore, the terms imposed in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case—where Kejriwal was restricted from visiting his office or signing official files—were maintained, reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process.

Justice Kant’s wisdom lies in his understanding that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. His decision to grant bail reflects a careful consideration of the larger principles of justice, particularly when there is no evidence of tampering or interference with the ongoing investigation. He rightly dismissed apprehensions of tampering by Kejriwal, recognizing that such concerns were speculative at best.

In contrast, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s separate opinion, while concurring with the grant of bail, raises questions about the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest and suggests that the CBI's intent was to frustrate the bail process. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks, particularly his critique of the CBI as a "caged parrot," seem to overreach, casting undue aspersions on the investigative agency without substantive proof. His questioning of the CBI’s timing appears speculative, given that investigative strategies and timelines can vary depending on multiple factors, including the complexity of the case and evolving evidence.

Moreover, Justice Bhuyan's criticism of the conditions imposed in the ED case—that prevent Kejriwal from accessing his office and signing official files—seems misplaced. These restrictions are a precautionary measure, designed to prevent potential misuse of official power while under investigation. Justice Bhuyan’s reluctance to accept these conditions could undermine the very safeguards that ensure the accused does not interfere with or obstruct the investigation.

In conclusion, while both judges concurred on the need to grant bail, Justice Surya Kant's reasoned and balanced approach shines through. His judgment reflects a deep understanding of both the rights of the individual and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process. In contrast, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks, especially those questioning the CBI’s motives and criticizing necessary restrictions, seem hasty and potentially counterproductive to ensuring justice is both served and seen to be served.

A BRIEF NOTE ON THE AUTHOR

The author is a reputed lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts and Tribunals in India. Views expressed are the personal opinion of the author. 

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy corruption case, which had been lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted key issues concerning the prolonged incarceration of the accused, with a focus on individual liberty and the role of investigative agencies.

Justice Surya Kant, in his measured and balanced approach, emphasized the fundamental principle that prolonged detention without trial amounts to an unjust deprivation of liberty. He carefully underscored that bail should not be denied merely as a punitive measure, especially when the completion of the trial is not foreseeable in the immediate future. Justice Kant's perspective reflects a deep respect for the rights of individuals, ensuring that detention does not turn into an unjust punishment before guilt is established.

While granting bail to Kejriwal, Justice Kant imposed reasonable conditions, including a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh and two sureties of the same amount. These conditions were necessary to strike a balance between safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process and upholding Kejriwal's fundamental rights. Justice Kant also reiterated the importance of ensuring that Kejriwal refrains from making public comments on the merits of the case, ensuring that the matter is not prejudiced in the public eye. Furthermore, the terms imposed in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case—where Kejriwal was restricted from visiting his office or signing official files—were maintained, reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process.

Justice Kant’s wisdom lies in his understanding that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. His decision to grant bail reflects a careful consideration of the larger principles of justice, particularly when there is no evidence of tampering or interference with the ongoing investigation. He rightly dismissed apprehensions of tampering by Kejriwal, recognizing that such concerns were speculative at best.

In contrast, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s separate opinion, while concurring with the grant of bail, raises questions about the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest and suggests that the CBI's intent was to frustrate the bail process. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks, particularly his critique of the CBI as a "caged parrot," seem to overreach, casting undue aspersions on the investigative agency without substantive proof. His questioning of the CBI’s timing appears speculative, given that investigative strategies and timelines can vary depending on multiple factors, including the complexity of the case and evolving evidence.

Moreover, Justice Bhuyan's criticism of the conditions imposed in the ED case—that prevent Kejriwal from accessing his office and signing official files—seems misplaced. These restrictions are a precautionary measure, designed to prevent potential misuse of official power while under investigation. Justice Bhuyan’s reluctance to accept these conditions could undermine the very safeguards that ensure the accused does not interfere with or obstruct the investigation.

In conclusion, while both judges concurred on the need to grant bail, Justice Surya Kant's reasoned and balanced approach shines through. His judgment reflects a deep understanding of both the rights of the individual and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process. In contrast, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks, especially those questioning the CBI’s motives and criticizing necessary restrictions, seem hasty and potentially counterproductive to ensuring justice is both served and seen to be served.

A BRIEF NOTE ON THE AUTHOR

The author is a reputed lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts and Tribunals in India. Views expressed are the personal opinion of the author.