The bail granted to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday by the Supreme Court in the multi-crore excise policy scam has stirred a wave of celebration among the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supporters. However, this jubilation seems premature and disconnected from the reality of the legal situation. The two-member bench’s decision to grant Kejriwal bail, while one judge dissented on his immediate re-arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after his release in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, has been widely discussed. Despite his release, Kejriwal remains an accused, with serious allegations hanging over him. AAP’s premature celebration not only misleads their supporters but also raises significant questions about their understanding of judicial processes. The fundamental principle of law in India is that “bail is a right, and jail is an exception.” This tenet, followed by the judiciary, ensures that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, this does not mean that obtaining bail is an exoneration of the crime charged. Celebrating bail as if it were an acquittal is a gross misrepresentation of the judicial process. The court’s decision to grant bail to Kejriwal does not imply that he is cleared of all charges. Until the court either quashes the case or acquits him after a thorough trial, Kejriwal remains an accused in a serious scam. Yet, AAP leaders have chosen to portray this legal relief as a moral and political victory, with slogans like “Satyamev Jayate” being chanted to suggest vindication. This narrative is misleading. It sidesteps the fact that Kejriwal, who has spent almost six months in prison, is still embroiled in a case where he is named as the “kingpin” in an additional charge sheet filed by the ED. Such posturing not only undermines the judicial process but also insults the intelligence of the public, who are well aware that bail is not a certification of innocence. Moreover, Kejriwal’s bail comes with stringent conditions. The court made it clear that he cannot perform his duties as Chief Minister, which includes attending office or accessing files, effectively sidelining him from executive functions until further notice. This restriction is a telling sign that the judiciary does not view him as a free man in the true sense. The bail appears more a legal formality than a validation of innocence, given the ongoing investigations and upcoming trials.
Interestingly, this is not the first time Kejriwal has received such relief. Before the Lok Sabha elections, he was granted bail in the same ED case on the grounds that, as the AAP president, he needed to campaign for his party. This leniency, seemingly provided on political grounds, raises eyebrows among law-abiding citizens who wonder if the same standards are applied uniformly. For instance, the same judiciary did not extend such courtesy to another Chief Minister, Hemant Soren of Jharkhand, also embroiled in a money laundering case. While Soren eventually got regular bail and resumed office, the differential treatment in initially granting bail on grounds of political obligations leaves many questioning the consistency of judicial decisions. Kejriwal, a bureaucrat-turned-politician, has often been seen as clever in navigating the system. His decision to serve as a Chief Minister without holding any specific portfolio is unprecedented in Indian politics. This arrangement, while appearing to absolve him of direct responsibility, does not exempt him from accountability, especially in major policy decisions such as the excise policy, which allegedly led to the scam. Being the head of the state government, he presides over every cabinet meeting and, therefore, cannot shirk responsibility for the alleged multi-crore scam. The case against Kejriwal also involves his former ally, Manish Sisodia, who spent considerable time in prison before being granted bail. While Sisodia resigned following his arrest, Kejriwal did not follow suit, exposing a stark hypocrisy. This double standard reflects poorly on Kejriwal’s political ethics and raises legitimate concerns about his accountability. The apex court’s decision to grant bail may be rooted in the judiciary’s principle that jail is an exception. However, the Central agencies, including the CBI and ED, claim to have gathered substantial evidence of Kejriwal’s involvement in the scam, allegedly using hawala channels to fund electoral campaigns like those in Goa. While the AAP leadership has touted the agencies’ inability to recover direct cash from their personal properties as proof of their innocence, the agencies have countered by highlighting the difficulty of tracing funds through intricate hawala networks. Moreover, there are allegations that funds were not just routed for electoral gains but also came from dubious sources like pro-Khalistan elements abroad. If proven true, these charges could not only tarnish Kejriwal’s image but also expose AAP to allegations of compromising national security. In light of these developments, the celebration by AAP over Kejriwal’s bail is both premature and misplaced. The apex court’s decision is a procedural relief, not a moral victory. The real test lies ahead in the courts where the evidence against Kejriwal will be scrutinized, and his role in the alleged scam will be judged. Until then, AAP would do well to exercise restraint rather than misleadingly portray a legal reprieve as an endorsement of their leader’s integrity.
