Supreme Court questions Delhi High Court’s interim stay on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail

New Delhi,June 24: The Supreme Court on Monday labelled the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant an interim stay on bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal without passing a final order as “unusual.” A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti was hearing Kejriwal’s appeal against the High Court’s order.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain of the Delhi High Court had, on June 21, ordered an interim stay on the trial court’s decision to grant bail to Kejriwal. The Supreme Court remarked, “In stay matters, judgments are not reserved but passed on the spot. What has happened here is unusual, “ reported Bar & Bench.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that it would not repeat the High Court’s perceived mistake. It scheduled a hearing for June 26, expecting the High Court to issue its final order on the stay application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). “Orders on stay application were reserved, and till then, the lower court order granting bail was stayed. Parties were given the opportunity to file short submissions by June 24. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) says order on stay application will be passed shortly and this requests for an adjournment. We deem it appropriate that the case be listed day after and if the High Court passes an order meanwhile then let that be brought on record,” the Supreme Court stated.

Arguments in Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the interim stay on bail was unprecedented. “Bail granted and bail reversal are different. The procedure of staying bail on the first day is unprecedented. Balance of convenience is in my favour. If the plea is rejected, then he goes back to jail,” Singhvi contended.

He also criticized the High Court for halting the order before hearing the ED’s appeal. “The procedure is unknown. The stay was granted first and arguments were heard later,” Singhvi stated.

The Supreme Court observed, “The lawyers made short submissions and that means the order will come in a day or two.” Singhvi insisted, “I appreciate an order is expected to come but can bail be stayed on mentioning? Why cannot I be free? I am not a flight risk.”

ASG SV Raju, representing the ED, mentioned that the High Court would soon pass its order on the ED’s plea for a stay. The Bench responded, “If we pass an order we will be pre-judging the issue. It is the High Court and not a subordinate court.”

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, also for Kejriwal, highlighted Kejriwal’s clean record and non-flight risk status. “He does not have any criminal antecedents, not a flight risk... the investigation is on since 2022. Legality and validity of arrest is under challenge before this very court,” Chaudhary argued.

Singhvi added, “The 10:30 order by the High Court was passed without any reason and it is after the order that arguments were heard. Once bail granted cannot be reversed so easily. That is held by the Supreme Court.”

The ASG countered, “Order is perverse. Even on dates the lower court order is wrong.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, rebutted Singhvi’s points, stating, “The court started by saying it is a high profile question... Court records in order that it is not possible to go through the papers in this case.”

In response to Singhvi’s assertion that the High Court order was issued prematurely, the ASG replied, “Yes you are correct.. but once you look at the order no satisfaction of section 45.” The Supreme Court concluded, “What we propose to do is let the High Court order come on record and we can keep the case next week. Without the order, how do we proceed.”

Singhvi questioned, “That is a catch 22 situation.. if the High Court can pass an order at 10:30 am without a paper book or order. Then why cannot SC also stay the HC order without judgment?” The Court responded, “If the High Court did a mistake why should we repeat it.”

The Solicitor General suggested, “Let us have this case the day after tomorrow. Not expressing anything on merits on what has been argued.” The Supreme Court agreed, stating, “Let us have this case the day after tomorrow. Not expressing anything on merits on what has been argued.”

Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, accused of conspiring to create loopholes in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22 to benefit certain liquor sellers. The ED alleged that kickbacks received from these sellers funded the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) electoral campaign in Goa, holding Kejriwal, as the National Convenor, personally and vicariously liable for money laundering.

Kejriwal denied the allegations, accusing the ED of running an extortion racket. Other AAP leaders arrested in the same case include former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh. Singh is out on bail, while Sisodia remains in jail.

On June 20, the trial court granted bail to Kejriwal, subject to a bail bond of ₹1 lakh. Special Judge Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court noted that the ED failed to provide direct evidence linking Kejriwal to the crime’s proceeds and that the ED acted with bias. The ED immediately sought an urgent hearing from the Delhi High Court, which reserved its order on the stay application but issued an interim stay on the bail order.