‘Campaigning not fundamental, constitutional or legal right’: ED opposes bail plea of Arvind Kejriwal

563

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the interim bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to allow him to campaign during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, the Enforcement Directorate has filed an affidavit opposing his petition.

The affidavit asserts that laws apply equally to all citizens and that campaigning is not considered a fundamental, constitutional or legal right.

The Enforcement Directorate, which arrested Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the liquor policy case on March 21, has emphasised that granting bail to a political leader solely for the purpose of campaigning would set a problematic precedent.

The agency has highlighted that no political leader has been granted bail specifically for campaigning purposes in the past.

During the hearing of the petition on Tuesday, the Supreme Court acknowledged the role of Arvind Kejriwal as the elected Chief Minister of Delhi and noted that he is not a habitual offender.

Also Read: ‘Can’t sign files if granted bail’: Supreme Court tells Arvind Kejriwal

The bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, recognised the significance of the ongoing elections and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case.

The court’s consideration of Kejriwal’s petition reflects a balancing act between legal principles and the demands of electoral politics.

Earlier, the court had indicated that the issue of interim bail has arisen primarily due to the electoral context. However, the justices also expressed concerns about potential interference in governance matters if Arvind Kejriwal is released, given the nature of the charges related to the liquor excise policy.

“…suppose we release you, and you are allowed to participate in elections, you will (also) be performing official duties… it can have cascading effects,” the bench said.

In response to these concerns, Arvind Kejriwal’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, assured the court that his client would abstain from addressing matters pertaining to the excise case or carrying out official duties if granted bail.

The Supreme Court reiterated, We make it clear… we don’t want you to be performing official duties if we release you…” the Supreme Court reiterated, “We don’t want any interference in functioning of government.”