How Did the Supreme Court Turn the Tide in the Delhi Excise Policy Case?

The Delhi Excise Policy case has remained in the spotlight for over a year, primarily due to the arrest of several high-profile political figures. However, recent decisions by the Supreme Court of India have significantly altered the course of the case, particularly regarding the release of these individuals on bail. Through a series of landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message: even when accused under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), bail should be the rule, not the exception.

The Origins of the Case

The controversy began in 2022 when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leadership, alleging that the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy was manipulated. According to the probe agency, the policy was altered to benefit certain liquor manufacturers and distributors, creating monopolies and cartels within the Delhi liquor trade. The CBI claimed that kickbacks from these manufacturers had made their way to AAP leaders, including senior party figures. This prompted a parallel investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the PMLA, resulting in a series of arrests that included some of the most prominent opposition figures in the country.

High-Profile Arrests

Among those arrested were Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, AAP MP Sanjay Singh, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha, and former AAP communications head Vijay Nair. The arrests were met with widespread criticism, with several political commentators suggesting that they were motivated by factors beyond mere legal grounds.

Despite the media attention and public outcry, the accused remained in jail for extended periods, as both the Rouse Avenue Court and the Delhi High Court repeatedly denied bail. The courts consistently cited the stringent bail conditions under the PMLA as a reason for rejecting their bail pleas. At one point, a Delhi court, while hearing a related case, went so far as to remark, "ED matters main kaun si bail hoti hai?" (Where is the question of bail in ED matters?), reflecting the judiciary's general reluctance to grant bail in cases involving the ED.

The Supreme Court's Intervention

In stark contrast to the lower courts' stance, the Supreme Court took a more lenient view, granting bail to the accused and fundamentally shifting the approach to such cases. While the Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the allegations during the bail hearings, it focused on the procedural aspects of the investigation. During hours-long hearings, the Court grilled the investigating agencies, questioning the sufficiency of evidence and the procedures followed.

The Supreme Court's decisions serve as a significant departure from the stance of the lower courts, particularly with respect to how bail is treated in cases involving special laws like the PMLA. In granting bail, the Court effectively emphasized that stringent laws should not override the basic principle that bail is a fundamental right, especially when the personal liberty of the accused is at stake.

A Closer Look at Individual Cases

Arvind Kejriwal

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal became the first sitting Chief Minister to be arrested by the ED on March 21, 2024, ahead of the national elections. Initially, Kejriwal failed to secure interim protection from arrest after the Delhi High Court rejected his request. He was subsequently arrested by the ED, with the High Court later upholding the arrest, stating that the agency had sufficient grounds to believe Kejriwal was involved in money laundering.

However, the Supreme Court took a different approach when it granted him interim bail on July 12. Rather than focusing on Kejriwal’s alleged role in the crime, the Court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the ED’s arrest, questioning whether the agency had appropriately considered both incriminating and exonerating material. The Court also raised doubts about the necessity of the arrest, referring the broader question of whether arrests under the PMLA must satisfy the test of "necessity" to a larger bench for further deliberation.

Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh

In a similar vein, former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and AAP MP Sanjay Singh also faced multiple rejections of their bail pleas by the lower courts, with the judiciary citing the PMLA’s stringent conditions. However, the Supreme Court granted them bail, following the same logic applied in Kejriwal’s case. The focus remained on procedural fairness and the importance of upholding the personal liberty of the accused.

The Message to Lower Courts

The Supreme Court’s decisions send a clear signal to the courts below that, even when dealing with cases under special laws like the PMLA, bail should not be treated as a distant possibility. The apex court highlighted that procedural safeguards must be adhered to and that personal liberty should not be undermined on account of strict legal provisions.

The Court also criticized the High Court’s decision to ask Kejriwal to approach the trial court for bail, even after issuing notice on his plea. The apex court stressed that if there are significant delays following such notice, the High Court should take up the matter directly, rather than redirecting it to the trial court, as personal liberty must be treated with urgency.

Conclusion

The Delhi Excise Policy case serves as a critical reminder of the balance between legal provisions and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings underline that, regardless of the gravity of the charges or the strictness of the law, bail should remain the rule, not the exception. These rulings also emphasize the importance of ensuring that investigative agencies follow due process and that courts prioritize personal liberty, particularly in cases where the trial may stretch on for years.