Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Case: Supreme Court grants interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal and refers petition challenging his arrest by ED to Larger bench

A big relief for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as the Supreme Court (SC) of India granted him interim bail in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) over the Delhi liquor policy scam case. However, the top Court referred his petition challenging his arrest by the ED in the liquor policy scam case to a larger bench. Today (July 12, 2024), the bench constituting Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing the matter. The bench illustrated three questions of law for consideration by a larger bench:

• “Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” is a separate ground to challenge the order of arrest passed in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act?
• Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” refers to the satisfaction of formal parameters to arrest and take a person into custody, or it relates to other personal grounds and reasons regarding necessity to arrest a person in the facts and circumstances of the said case?
• If questions…(above questions) are answered in the affirmative, what are the parameters and facts that are to be taken into consideration by the court while examining the question of need and necessity to arrest?”

However, Arvind Kejriwal will remain in custody because on June 25 he was arrested by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) under PMLA in connection with the same Delhi liquor scam case. While granting interim bail to him, Justice Khanna said that the ‘reasons to believe’ for arrest meet with the parameters of Section 19 of the MLA granting power of arrest to the ED officers. He orally remarked, “However, having said so, we have raised an additional ground which relates to the need and necessity of arrest...we felt that this issue whether the ground of need and necessity of arrest must be read into Section 19, especially in view of the doctrine of proportionality. We have referred those questions to the larger bench.” 

Further, the SC bench, in its judgment, said, “As we are referring the matter to a larger Bench, we have to, despite our findings on ‘reasons to believe’, consider whether interim bail should be granted to Arvind Kejriwal. Given the fact that right to life and liberty is sacrosanct, and Arvind Kejriwal has suffered incarceration of over 90 days, and that the questions referred to above require in-depth consideration by a larger Bench, we direct that Arvind Kejriwal may be released on interim bail in connection with case…, on the same terms, as imposed, vide the order dated 10.05.2024.” It added, “We are conscious that Arvind Kejriwal is an elected leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi, a post holding importance and influence. We have also referred to the allegations. While we do not give any direction, since we are doubtful whether the court can direct an elected leader to step down or not function as the Chief Minister or as a Minister, we leave it to Arvind Kejriwal to take a call. Larger Bench, if deemed appropriate, can frame question(s) and decide the conditions that can be imposed by the court in such cases.”