The Supreme Court Registry on Wednesday, May 29, declined to list Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking a seven-day extension of his interim bail in the ongoing Liquor Policy Case. The Registry’s decision is based on the grounds that Kejriwal has been granted the liberty to seek regular bail from the trial court, making the current application for an extension inadmissible.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the judgment on Kejriwal’s challenge to his arrest is already reserved. Therefore, extending the interim bail has no direct relevance to the main petition. On May 10, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had granted Kejriwal interim bail, which is set to expire on June 1.
Kejriwal’s request for an extension was based on medical grounds, as he needs to undergo diagnostic tests, including a PET-CT scan. He argued that the extension would allow him to complete these necessary medical procedures. Despite this, the Supreme Court Registry maintained its stance that the appropriate venue for such a request is the trial court.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi had mentioned Kejriwal’s application before a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan. Justice Maheshwari pointed out that since the judgment had already been reserved, the matter should be directed to the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate order.
As per the interim order issued on May 10, Kejriwal is required to surrender by June 2. The decision underscores the legal complexities surrounding high-profile cases and the procedural rigor of the Indian judiciary in handling bail applications and related matters.
The case against Kejriwal pertains to allegations of irregularities in Delhi’s liquor policy. The interim bail had initially been granted to allow him time to prepare his defense. The Supreme Court’s refusal to extend this bail signals a significant turn in the legal proceedings, emphasizing the court’s strict adherence to procedural norms.
The developments in this case are being closely watched, given Kejriwal’s prominent political position and the implications of the charges against him. The Supreme Court’s approach highlights the balance it seeks to maintain between legal due process and the rights of individuals under investigation.
