Manashimaya
In a dramatic turn of events, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed the bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, labelling him the ‘mastermind’ or ‘sutradhaar’ of the controversial liquor policy case. The CBI, in a supplementary chargesheet, has justified Kejriwal’s arrest, emphasising the critical role he allegedly played in the formulation and implementation of the liquor policy.
The CBI argued before the Delhi High Court that the investigation could not have reached its conclusion without Kejriwal’s arrest. According to the CBI, Kejriwal was deeply involved in the alleged scam, making his detainment necessary. The court has reserved its order on the bail plea, marking a significant moment in the ongoing legal battle.
Background of the Case
The Enforcement Directorate detained Arvind Kejriwal, the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), on March 21 about a money laundering case involving the liquor policy. Kejriwal was seized by the CBI in a connected case, and although the Supreme Court granted him temporary bail, he is still being held. Advocate DP Singh, the CBI’s attorney, emphasized that Kejriwal is not inherently eligible for bail merely because two other leaders, Manish Sisodia, and K Kavitha, had comparable chargesheets filed against them and were not granted relief.
The Allegations
The CBI has positioned Arvind Kejriwal as the ‘mastermind’ behind the liquor policy, accusing him of hastily signing and circulating the policy during the second COVID-19 lockdown. The agency claims that meetings were conducted by individuals from the alleged “South Group,” who flew to the national capital on chartered flights. The CBI asserts that it possesses direct evidence against Kejriwal and, given the gravity of the offence, argues that bail should not be granted.
Defence Arguments
On behalf of Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that the CBI’s arrest of the AAP leader was merely an “insurance arrest” following his bail in the money laundering case. Singhvi argued that there is no substantial evidence against Kejriwal, no recoveries linked to him and that the case is built on hearsay. He emphasised that the liquor policy’s approval process involved multiple levels of scrutiny, including the Lieutenant Governor and nearly 50 bureaucrats, who were part of nine expert committees that analysed the policy over a year.
Key Points of Contention
Singhvi criticised the CBI’s approach, suggesting that it is unfair to target Kejriwal based on assumptions and hearsay. He pointed out that the policy’s approval was a collective decision and that the Chief Minister was not the sole authority. Singhvi questioned the fairness of the CBI’s methods, arguing that criminal liability should not be established through speculative connections.
In response, the CBI’s counsel argued that the inclusion of the Lieutenant Governor as a co-accused was a sensationalist move by Kejriwal’s defence. The CBI maintained that it has documentary and direct oral evidence implicating Kejriwal, reinforcing their stance against granting bail.
Conclusion
The case has garnered a lot of attention and brought to light the fierce legal and political struggles surrounding the liquor policy while the court awaited its decision on the bail application. The continuing story has taken a dramatic turn with the CBI’s claim that Arvind Kejriwal is the “mastermind” of the liquor policy case. Both parties have made strong cases, therefore Kejriwal and the political environment as a whole will be greatly impacted by the case’s verdict.
