New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (June 24) observed that the Delhi high court’s decision to reserve its order on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) stay application against Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail was “a bit unusual,” Live Law reported. The court noted that stay orders are typically passed immediately after the hearing, not reserved.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and S.V.N. Bhatti heard Kejriwal’s petition against the June 21 order passed by the high court, which stayed the operation of the trial court’s order granting him bail in the liquor policy case.
During the proceedings, Justice Misra expressed surprise at the high court’s decision to reserve its order, stating that it is unusual for stay applications to be reserved and not passed immediately. “Normally on stay applications, orders are not reserved. They are passed at the hearing itself, on the spot. So it is a bit unusual, we will have it day after,” he said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the procedure of staying the bail on the first day is unprecedented and that the balance of convenience is in the petitioner’s favour, the reported mentioned.
The court stressed that passing any order would amount to “pre-judging the issue” and preferred to await the high court’s final order. The matter has been listed for hearing on June 26.
As per Live Law, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary highlighted during the hearing that in the May 10 order granting Kejriwal interim bail, the Supreme Court had noted that the Delhi chief minister has no criminal record, poses no threat to society, and was arrested in March 2024 despite the investigation starting in August 2022.
Singhvi added that Supreme Court judgments state that bail cannot be stayed without special reasons. Both advocates objected to the high court’s oral order staying the bail, citing the ED’s petition was filed before the bail order was uploaded, the report mentioned.
Moreover, Justice Misra asked if the bail order met the twin conditions of Section 45 in the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), to which ASG S.V. Raju replied in the negative. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta explained that the vacation judge needed time to review the case record, Live Law reported.
As Justice Misra suggested the case to be listed only after the high court pronounces its order, Singhvi argued that if the high court could stay the order without seeing it, the Supreme Court should also stay the high court’s order. Justice Misra responded that the Supreme Court shouldn’t repeat the high court’s potential mistake, as per the report.
Notably, the trial court had granted bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case on June 20 after forming a prima facie opinion that he is not guilty of the office. However, the ED swiftly filed an urgent petition in the Delhi high court on June 21, challenging the bail order. The high court heard the matter the same day, with the single judge bench reserving its order on the ED’s application to stay the bail. Until the order is pronounced, the bail order has been stayed, effectively keeping Kejriwal’s legal status in limbo.
The Delhi chief minister was arrested on March 21 in relation to money laundering allegations in the Delhi liquor policy 2021-22. It was scrapped after the Delhi lieutenant governor had expressed concerns over it. The ED’s case is that Kejriwal used money received from liquor sellers to fund his Aam Aadmi Party’s election campaigner in the Goa assembly elections.
