Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, filed a writ appeal on Wednesday, contesting his detention by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi liquor excise policy case. Kejriwal also requested interim bail in the same case, and the Delhi High Court postponed its decision.
In the meantime, the ordinary bail hearing was postponed until July 29 by the HC. Notably, the court was considering Kejriwal’s arguments to contest his CBI arrest and request regular release.
The event occurred one day after Kejriwal was set to leave Tihar jail following the Supreme Court’s granting of interim bail in a different Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.
Kejriwal’s attorneys fiercely contested the CBI’s custody of him before the High Court. They said that his arrest was unjustified and seemed to be the result of malicious intent, coming months after the evidence was gathered and nearly two years after the case was filed.
“It’s evident that the CBI’s detention was meant to hinder and impede his release in the ED case,” Kejriwal’s attorneys said, drawing attention to what they perceived as an oppressive effort to limit his freedom. The timing and procedural anomalies of the arrest, which happened shortly after bail was granted in the ED case and before a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, drew harsh criticism.
On the other hand, the CBI said during the custody remand that Kejriwal had been uncooperative during questioning, giving evasive answers that were at odds with the documentation. They charged him of neglecting to provide an explanation for the sudden rise in liquor wholesaler profit margins under the new Excise Policy of Delhi 2021–22, which was enacted at the height of the second wave of the Covid-19 outbreak.
In addition, the CBI claimed that Kejriwal avoided answering questions about supposed meetings in which participants in the liquor industry were allegedly asked to get illicit rewards in exchange for favorable policy provisions. Concerning his contacts with people connected to money transfer operations during the Goa Assembly Elections, they also raised concerns.
In response, Kejriwal’s legal team criticized the investigating officers’ selective presentation of evidence and emphasized the idea that arrests cannot be conducted for investigation grounds alone. They emphasized that all relevant information, including any evidence that could clear the accused, must be taken into account in such proceedings.
Kejriwal’s arrest was earlier criticized by the Supreme Court in its interim bail ruling in the ED case. The Court stated that arrests cannot be made arbitrarily and must be supported by substantial proof rather than the “whims and fancies” of the authorities.
The legal and political fallout from these proceedings is anticipated to have a significant impact on governance and judicial review of investigative processes as Kejriwal gets ready to be released on bond.
In addition to highlighting ongoing conflicts between federal investigative agencies and the AAP-led government in Delhi, the case also raises issues of how politics, law enforcement, and individual rights are intertwined in India’s democratic system.
