The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against the Delhi High Court’s temporary suspension of his bail. The new hearing date is June 26.
Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, part of the vacation bench, decided to wait for the Delhi High Court’s ruling on the matter. The Enforcement Directorate had appealed the trial court’s decision to grant bail to Kejriwal in the Delhi High Court. Last week, the High Court paused the trial court’s bail order pending its final decision.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the Delhi Chief Minister should remain free until the High Court makes its decision, emphasizing that Kejriwal has a valid bail order and is not a flight risk.
ASG SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, informed the Supreme Court that the High Court’s decision is expected soon.
Supreme Court Tells Kejriwal to Wait for High Court Bail Decision
On Monday, the Supreme Court advised Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to wait for the Delhi High Court’s ruling on his bail plea related to a money laundering case connected to the now-cancelled Delhi liquor policy.
Kejriwal had petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court’s temporary halt on the bail granted to him by a lower court the previous week. The High Court has scheduled its order announcement for June 25.
The proceedings were overseen by Justices Manoj Misra and SV Bhatti, with senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhary representing Kejriwal, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raju appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Also Read: Arvind Kejriwal Gets Bail From Delhi Court, Denies ED’s Plea
Legal Debate Over Bail Order
During the arguments, Singhvi criticized the Delhi High Court for putting a hold on the trial court’s bail order without waiting for it. He questioned, “If the High Court can do that, why can’t your lordships stay the High Court’s order?”
Justice Misra responded, “Should we repeat a mistake if the High Court made one?”
Singhvi argued that the stay on the bail was unprecedented and insisted that Kejriwal was not a flight risk. The bench hinted that a final order would be coming soon and advised everyone to wait. Singhvi expressed concern about the time lost after obtaining bail.
“Why can’t I be free in the interim? I have a judgment in my favor,” Singhvi contended.
Justice Misra replied, “Issuing an order now would mean prejudging the issue. It’s a High Court, not a lower court.”
The bench asked why waiting another day was a problem.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary pointed out the Supreme Court’s May 10 order granting Kejriwal interim bail, noting Kejriwal’s lack of criminal history and minimal risk to the investigation. He also mentioned the May 17 order, where the Supreme Court reserved judgment on Kejriwal’s arrest, allowing him to apply for bail.
The ED’s lawyer, ASG Raju, argued that the trial court’s bail order was flawed.
After hearing both sides, the top court expressed reluctance to pressure the High Court on a non-high-profile matter. It noted, “Normally, stay application orders are immediate. This situation is unusual.”
The hearing was adjourned, with the bench stating that if the High Court’s order is issued in the meantime, it should be recorded. Kejriwal’s plea will be revisited on Wednesday, June 26.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q.1. Why was Arvind Kejriwal’s bail hearing postponed?
Ans. The Supreme Court awaits the Delhi High Court’s ruling on the temporary suspension of Kejriwal’s bail.
Q.2. Who represents Arvind Kejriwal in court?
Ans. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhary are his legal representatives.
Q.3. What is the Enforcement Directorate’s stance?
Ans. ASG SV Raju argues against the trial court’s bail order, citing flaws.
Q.4. Why did the Supreme Court express reluctance?
Ans. It hesitated to influence the High Court’s decision on a significant matter.
Q.5. When will the next hearing take place?
Ans. Kejriwal’s plea will be reconsidered on Wednesday, June 26, after the High Court’s decision.
