National NewsNews

Delhi High Court Halts Kejriwal’s Bail: Legal Battle Intensifies

The Delhi High Court has suspended the trial court’s order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to an alleged excise scam, following a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED’s counsel argued that they were not afforded sufficient time to present their case adequately before the trial court issued the bail order. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju pressed for the suspension of the bail, asserting that the trial court’s decision was premature and overlooked critical arguments. Meanwhile, Kejriwal’s legal team, led by senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari, countered the ED’s claims, emphasizing procedural fairness and the legality of the trial court’s ruling.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain and Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the ED’s urgent plea and temporarily restrained the trial court’s bail order from taking effect pending further deliberations. The legal battle has escalated, with Kejriwal’s lawyers highlighting the Supreme Court’s previous grant of interim bail for political activities and arguing against the abrupt challenge by the ED. The controversy has sparked political reactions, with Kejriwal’s wife, Sunita Kejriwal, decrying the ED’s actions as excessive and likening them to treating her husband as a “terrorist.” AAP leader Sanjay Singh accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of undermining judicial processes, alleging political interference in legal proceedings.

The case underscores escalating tensions between the AAP-led Delhi government and federal investigative agencies, raising broader concerns about the independence of judiciary and political maneuvering in high-profile legal cases. As the High Court prepares to delve deeper into the merits of the ED’s challenge, the outcome could significantly impact both the legal precedent and the political landscape in Delhi. Kejriwal’s supporters maintain that the legal actions against him are politically motivated, while critics argue for the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law.