Arvind Kejriwal bail order: Supreme Court rules that mere questioning does not permit arrest

In a money laundering case, the Supreme Court granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal interim bail, noting that “mere interrogation does not allow arrest.”https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/arvind-kejriwal-bail-liquor-policy-enforcement-arrested-money-laundering-case-2565686-2024-07-12

The Supreme Court said on Friday that “mere interrogation does not justify arrest” in granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy case. The court acknowledged that Kejriwal had “suffered” for over ninety days while incarcerated and stated that it is aware that he is an elected official.

The AAP leader’s petition contesting the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrest was also forwarded to a higher bench by the bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta. This was done to investigate whether Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) required an arrest.

KEY OBSERVATIONS BY SUPREME COURT

Although we have grounds to assume that it complies with Section 19 of the PMLA, we now feel that an arrest is required. We believed that a bigger bench should be consulted in order to determine whether the need and necessity of an arrest can be read into Section 19.We’ve held that an arrest cannot be made just through questioning.

“Arvind Kejriwal has suffered incarceration for more than 90 days.”
“We are aware that Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Minister of Delhi, a position of significant and power, and that he is an elected official. We leave it to Arvind Kejriwal to make the decision, even though we do not issue any directives since we are unsure whether a court can order an elected leader to resign or cease to serve as a Chief Minister or Minister.”

“We have looked at the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA, but we haven’t looked at the bail question. The distinction between Section 19 and Section 45 has been elucidated. While Section 45 is used by the court itself, Section 19 concerns the subjective opinions of officers and is subject to judicial scrutiny.”

Regarding the investigating officer’s discretion, we have offered distinct interpretations of Sections 19 and 45. The investigating officer’s authority and the court’s are not the same.”
“Considering the right to life is at stake and since the matter has been referred to a larger bench, we direct Arvind Kejriwal to be released on interim bail.”