Delhi High Court dismisses PIL seeking Arvind Kejriwal's bail, levies Rs 75,000 fine
- In Reports
- 07:31 PM, Apr 22, 2024
- Myind Staff
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on "extraordinary interim bail" in all criminal cases filed against him.
The court imposed a fine of Rs 75,000 on the law student who filed the petition, noting that nobody is exempt from the law. The court emphasised that Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), remains in judicial custody as per the orders of the court.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora presided over the case. The petitioner argued that given the absence of representation for public concerns, the situation warranted extraordinary measures. "I am seeking extraordinary interim bail for him until the end of his tenure," the petitioner stated. Kejriwal's lawyer contested the PIL.
Kejriwal remains in judicial custody concerning the ED's money laundering case related to the now-defunct Delhi Liquor Policy.
The PIL was submitted by a fourth-year law student under the name "We the People of India." He clarified to the court that he chose this title to disassociate from any pursuit of fame or personal gain in the case.
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, representing Kejriwal, labelled the PIL as misguided and the petitioner's plea as impermissible. The petitioner's counsel argued that the essence of India lies within its citizens, to which the court responded by questioning the petitioner's assertion of being India.
The High Court informed the petitioner that Kejriwal is content with the steps taken in the proceedings and does not require assistance. The bench questioned the petitioner's authority to intervene, likening it to possessing veto power in the United Nations.
Despite this, the petitioner's counsel persisted, expressing concerns about the welfare of Delhi's residents and emphasising the extraordinary circumstances. The bench reiterated the principle of the law being equal for all.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the CM's confinement affects essential processes like document signing and medicine approval. He emphasised that Kejriwal's confinement without a guilty verdict is unprecedented. Kejriwal's lawyer countered, accusing the petitioner's father of politicising the court proceedings.
The Bench questioned the petitioner's legal understanding, noting potential inconsistencies in his arguments. It reiterated that personal interests must yield to national interests, affirming the Chief Minister's discretion. Ultimately, the court dismissed the plea, stating that Kejriwal's judicial custody was lawful.
Image source: India Today
Comments