It is at best a source of limited relief and at worst, evidence of a completely dysfunctional criminal justice system
.jpeg)
**Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail: Limited Relief from Supreme Court**
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal received only partial relief from the Supreme Court in his ongoing legal troubles. While the court granted bail in one case, it stopped short of providing broader protection against future legal challenges. The limited scope of the relief highlights the complexity of the charges against him and leaves Kejriwal facing further legal scrutiny. The decision, though a temporary reprieve, doesn’t fully shield the AAP leader from ongoing investigations and court proceedings.
.jpeg)
Court judgments in India often obscure reality with layers of legal jargon and formalities. However, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s partly concurring judgment in the Arvind Kejriwal excise policy case is a refreshing departure. In granting Kejriwal bail and declaring his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) illegal, Justice Bhuyan cuts through the legal rhetoric to highlight a stark truth: Kejriwal’s arrest and detention were orchestrated to prevent him from securing bail in the related Enforcement Directorate case.
While the other judge on the bench, Justice Surya Kant, agreed with the decision to grant bail, he differed on the legality of the arrest. Justice Bhuyan’s judgment stands out for two key reasons: it underscores the illegality of the arrest and exposes the CBI’s use of legal procedures as a form of punishment.
In taking this stance, Justice Bhuyan defies the prevailing trend in certain segments of the Indian judiciary, which has been criticized for siding with the government in high-profile criminal cases. His critique of the restrictive bail conditions imposed on Kejriwal, reminiscent of Justice B. Nagarathna’s dissent in the Bilkis Bano case, subtly calls out his fellow judges for their hesitation in safeguarding civil rights.