Breaking: No Relief For Arvind Kejriwal From Supreme Court, Appeal Adjourned To Wednesday Awaiting High Court's Order

The Supreme Court, today, adjourned Arvind Kejriwal's appeal against the stay by the Delhi High Court on the order of the Trial Court granting bail to Kejriwal, to Wednesday. The Court directed that the order that may be passed by the High Court in the mean time be produced before it on Wednesday.

The Vacation Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SVN Bhatti ordered, "The order impugned in this special leave petition is an order by which, after hearing the counsel for the parties, orders were reserved on the stay application. Until pronouncement of the order on the stay application, the operation of the order granting bail was stayed. The impugned order will reveal that parties were given an opportunity to file short submission by 24 June. ASG Raju who appears for the ED submits that the order on the stay application will be passed shortly and therefore it will be appropriate that the Court adjourns the case by a day so that it will have the opportunity to go through the order". 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kejriwal submitted at the outset that the bail granted was stayed by the High Court on the first hearing and that the same is unprecedented. He submitted that the balance of convenience is in his favour. He submitted that Kejriwal went back to jail immediately after the order of bail by the Supreme Court expired.  He submitted that Kejriwal cannot be compensated for the period spent in jail, if the appeal of the ED before the High Court ultimately fails. 

"As for the order of June 21, counsel were given time for filing short submissions by today. That means the order is likely to come soon", Justice Misra said.

Singhvi submitted that Kejriwal is not at flight risk. 

ASG SV Raju and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the order is likely to come tomorrow. 

"If we pass an order right now, we will be prejudging the issue. It is the High Court", Justice Misra said. 

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, also appearing for Kejriwal read from the previous order of the Supreme Court releasing Kejriwal on interim bail for elections and submitted that the Trial Court heard the case for four hours before granting bail to Kejriwal, while dealing with all contentions. He submitted that a discretionary order was passed by the Trial Court with respect to a person who had been released earlier by the Supreme Court. 

Singhvi then submitted that the stay granted by the High Court was without reason. He submitted that a bail once granted will not be stayed or reversed easily. He added that the ASG did not argue flight risk on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. He submitted that the ED's case is only on the perversity of the Trial Court's order.

Tushar Mehta then submitted that the Trial Court was a vacation bench, which said that it is a "high profile case" and asked the ASG to "cut short the argument" on behalf of the ED. "Court records in the order, who has the time to go through the records", Mehta submitted. 

Vikram Chaudhary submitted that the Trial Court's order deals with the "twin condition" and that the ED's appeal was filed before the order was available. 

"This is never done my lord. At 10.30 it is stayed", Singhvi submitted.

"We will fix a date. Let the Court pass the order", Justice Misra said.  

If the learned judge can stay the order without the order, why can't your lordships pass an order without the order, Singhvi submitted. 

"If the High Court made a mistake according to you, why should we repeat it", Justice Bhatti asked on a lighter note. 

The Court then adjourned the matter to Wednesday. The Court also remarked that it is unusual that the order is reserved on the interim application, in a challenge against the order granting bail. 

The Delhi High Court, June 21, 2024, had reserved the verdict in the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging the bail granted to Arvind Kejriwal, after it had allowed the urgent listing of the petition. The Court had stated that the stay on Trial Court order would continue till the pronouncement of the verdict. 

On June 20, 2024, Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Kejriwal. While granting bail, the ED had requested to keep the bail order in abeyance for 48 hours to allow the central agency to avail of legal remedies like moving the High Court in Appeal. However, the same was refused by the Trial Court.

Pertinently, on May 10, the Apex Court had granted Interim Bail to the Delhi Chief Minister till June 1. On May 7, the Bench had clarified that, if it releases Kejriwal on bail, it does not want him to perform official duties.

Prior to that, the Apex Court had observed that it may consider granting interim bail to Kejriwal on account of elections. On April 29, the Bench had asked the Senior Counsel appearing for the Delhi CM, "Why have you not filed any Application For bail?"

Previously, the Enforcement Directorate had filed an extensive affidavit-in-reply to the Special Leave Petition by the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, assailing the order passed by the Delhi High Court upholding the arrest and remand in the money laundering case. In its reply, the ED had alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the kingpin and key conspirator in the Delhi Liquor Policy Excise Scam, responsible for the mass destruction of evidence, and the main facilitator of the new policy for the bribe givers.

The ED had, earlier, stated in its affidavit that there are reasons to believe, based on material in possession, that Kejriwal is guilty of the offence of money laundering. The ED had also made a comparative table to demonstrate the changes made that were allegedly arbitrary and irrational, made only to ensure large-scale profits to the bribe givers. It was also stated by the ED that Arvind Kejriwal was asked to provide the password to his mobile phones again and again, but he refused to share the same and even his statements during custody would reveal that despite being confronted with materials, the petitioner chose to give completely evasive answers.

Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (Diary No.: 27685 of 2024)