Whether Supreme Court Granted Interim Bail to Kejriwal in Interests of the Society?

Total Views : 816
Zoom In Zoom Out Read Later Print

The Court has consistently emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the offense, as articulated in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013). Additionally, the Court has cautioned against preventive detention through restrictive bail conditions, as highlighted in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), where anticipatory bail is seen as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest.

New Delhi (ABC Live): On May 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal interim bail for 21 days to enable him to campaign for the AAP Party during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. This unique grant of bail was specifically tied to the importance of the elections, which the Court described as crucial for democracy. The Court dismissed arguments by the prosecution that such bail would unfairly advantage politicians over ordinary citizens.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had contended that granting a special right like a "right to campaign" violated Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court's decision underscored the exceptional significance of the electoral process in a democratic society.

The Supreme Court's approach to bail reflects its broader stance on personal liberty and the balance of individual rights with justice and public safety. Key judgments such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Another (2014) emphasize that bail is the norm over incarceration, with anticipatory bail to be granted unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise. The Court's recognition of judicial discretion in setting bail conditions, as seen in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), ensures that these conditions are tailored to individual circumstances without unduly restricting personal liberty.

The Court has consistently emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the offense, as articulated in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013). Additionally, the Court has cautioned against preventive detention through restrictive bail conditions, as highlighted in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), where anticipatory bail is seen as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest.

While the recent bail order for Arvind Kejriwal should discussed cases like Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1977) and State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005), where unique situations arose before the apex court regarding bails . Nonetheless, the principles underlying these landmark judgments echo the Court's broader approach to bail and personal liberty in India's legal landscape.

See More

Latest Photos