Kejriwal was the latest in a slew of prominent leaders — AAP ministers Satyendar Jain and Sanjay Singh, former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and BRS leader K Kavitha — to be arrested in the Delhi excise policy case.
The arrest by the Enforcement Directorate of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on March 21 — less than a month before voting began for the ongoing general elections — cast a shadow over the largest democratic exercise in the world. It sparked apprehensions about a powerful executive settling scores with its political opponents through investigative agencies under its control in a way that narrows and skews the playing field.
On Friday, May 10 — roughly halfway into the election — the Supreme Court took an important step towards undoing the damage and restoring the impression of fair play. The apex court has granted Kejriwal interim bail until June 1, when voting ends. Of course, the Court could have gone further, and it is regrettable that it didn’t — the bail is conditional and limited, he must return to custody on June 2.
Kejriwal was the latest in a slew of prominent leaders — AAP ministers Satyendar Jain and Sanjay Singh, former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and BRS leader K Kavitha — to be arrested in the Delhi excise policy case.
The leaders have been accused and charged under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court has made it clear that the grant of bail is not a comment on the guilt or innocence of the accused. At the same time, it has done well to reject the ED’s claims — made in an affidavit a day before the SC was to give its judgment — that granting interim bail to the Delhi CM to campaign would create two classes of citizens, and privilege politicians over others.
A farmer or businessman, the agency argued, would not get the benefit in similar circumstances, and that the “right to campaign in an election” does not exist. These arguments rightly cut little ice with the court, which pointed out that the context in this case is the general election, “the visa viva to a democracy”. And that given that Kejriwal is an elected chief minister and the leader of a national party, a “more holistic and libertarian view is justified”.
In essence, the Court recognised that an elected official is not just an individual but the people’s representative and that participation in the campaign is an inextricable and essential part of a fair election. The ED’s affidavit framed an overreach: It is certainly not for the agency to lecture on democracy and rights. The Court did well to snub its attempt to do so and assert its jurisdiction over grant of bail.
The Court’s order is significant beyond the current moment. For those playing the game, an electoral victory is often the final end of the democratic process. However, for the democratic system, the rules of the game matter as much, and more. On June 4, there will be winners and losers, but what will endure is the deference by both to that process, which is free and fair and seen to be so too. The SC’s grant of bail to Kejriwal upholds its primacy and underlines its credibility, regardless of who wins and who loses.
