Timing of Kejriwal’s arrest hints at bad faith, eagerness to deny him freedom

The arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI in the Delhi excise policy corruption case is unwarranted and appears tainted by bad faith. It was effected just before the Supreme Court of India was due to hear an appeal against a Delhi High Court order that had stayed the bail granted to him by a lower court in a money-laundering case related to the same allegation. The High Court had stalled his release on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate, but reserved its detailed order. The Supreme Court had deferred its hearing to June 26 to await the outcome. However, the High Court, by a detailed order, formalized the stay on the grant of bail. On June 26 morning, the CBI effected his formal arrest and sought his custody for interrogation in a CBI court. It is quite strange that it decided on this particular day and circumstance to formally arrest someone who has been in custody since March 21, save for a brief interlude during which he was granted interim bail. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the sole purpose was to deny him the possibility of freedom, if the Court had restored the bail order.

The allegation that Mr. Kejriwal was a beneficiary as well as a prime mover behind the controversial excise policy that allegedly procured windfall profits for favored liquor manufacturers is quite serious. However, the investigation has been going on for nearly two years, and suspects have been arrested from time to time. The evidence largely consists of statements made by accused persons who were subsequently granted pardon and made approvers. In these circumstances, the vacation judge who granted bail in the money-laundering case came to a reasonable conclusion that someone cannot be indefinitely incarcerated in the hope that a money trail and direct evidence would soon emerge to justify the action. Unfortunately, the High Court concluded that this verdict was arrived at without considering the entire material available and without affording sufficient opportunity to the prosecution. The picture of an accused having to go from the lowest to the highest court for bail and facing favorable and adverse orders alternately reflects poorly on a system that has been weaponized by the current regime to target political opponents. A truly impartial agency should not rush to arrest anyone, leave alone those holding high political office, but instead approach the trial court with a strong and well-documented case, and leave it to the courts to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Mr. Kejriwal, on his part, should have resigned immediately on arrest to avoid the perception he could influence witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
(The Hindu)