Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Ignoring the Peculiar Circumstances of the Appellant Would Be Inequitable: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Arvind Kejriwal Amid General Elections

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment today, the Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, acknowledging the unique context of his political role during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. The apex court, presided over by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, ruled that overlooking the “peculiar circumstances” surrounding Kejriwal would be “inequitable and wrong.”

Legal Background and Facts of the Case: Arvind Kejriwal was arrested on March 21, 2024, under allegations involving the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Prevention of Corruption Act. This arrest followed the registration of several charges by the Directorate of Enforcement and subsequent upholding by lower courts. Kejriwal’s legal team appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the validity of his arrest and seeking interim relief citing his pivotal role in the current general elections.

Court’s Analysis on Legal Points and Issues: The Supreme Court meticulously examined the provisions related to the grant of interim bail, citing several precedents affirming the judiciary’s authority to consider bail in extraordinary circumstances. The justices highlighted the ongoing general elections as a significant democratic process, rejecting the prosecution’s argument against preferential treatment for politicians. The court emphasized that special circumstances require special considerations, which in this case, justified the grant of interim bail.

Examination of Legal Provisions: Justice Khanna referred to the Mukesh Kishanpuria case, which supports the high court’s power to grant interim bail as part of constitutional rights under Article 21.

Peculiar Circumstances and Judicial Precedents: The court underscored previous rulings where interim releases were justified based on the peculiarities of each case, demonstrating the judiciary’s role in balancing legal standards with situational fairness.

Final Decision on Interim Bail: Kejriwal was granted bail until June 1, 2024, with strict conditions, including restrictions on accessing official premises and documents, emphasizing that this should not influence the ongoing legal proceedings regarding his arrest.

Case Title and Date of Decision: The case, titled “Arvind Kejriwal Versus Directorate of Enforcement,” was decided on May 10, 2024, marking a significant interim decision in the landscape of Indian legal proceedings involving high-profile political figures. The Supreme Court’s judgment not only addressed the immediate legalities of Kejriwal’s bail but also set a precedent on how judicial discretion can be applied in cases involving elected officials during critical democratic events.

Date of Decision: 10th May 2024

ARVIND KEJRIWAL VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Similar News