Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Decision Highlights Dysfunction in Justice System

Paromita Das 

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 17th May. The Chief Minister of Delhi was recently granted interim bail, which has sparked an important discussion about political leaders’ ability to campaign during national elections.
Even while Kejriwal’s bail provides a brief reprieve, it highlights more pressing issues with the criminal justice system. Although Kejriwal may have won this ruling, it comes at a high cost that may affect both the judiciary’s standing and Kejriwal’s electoral prospects.

We can have a better idea of the possible cost that the judiciary may bear for this. The argument over the judiciary’s authority to exercise discretion arbitrarily has already been ignited by the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Court may establish a precedent in the Arvind Kejriwal case, stating that politicians belong to a distinct class of citizens.

In the midst of these discussions, it is critical to look closely at this case’s specifics and analyze how democratic ideals, legal frameworks, and the criminal justice system interact.

The Delhi CM’s Case: The Detailed Legal Framework and Bail

The decision to grant Arvind Kejriwal temporary release highlights the delicate balance that must be struck between the right to privacy and the government’s need to uphold law and order.
The legal system, in theory, respects the tenet of “innocent until proven guilty,” which places the onus of proof completely on the prosecution.
But this approach is not without its difficulties, especially when dealing with politically sensitive or “heinous” issues.

More complexity arises from the requirements placed on the granting of bail pending trial.

Primarily, courts must be persuaded that there hasn’t been any criminal activity; this is a subjective threshold that might change based on how the facts are interpreted.
This need creates space for discretion and even misuse, especially in the absence of explicit standards for fairness and fulfillment.

The legal process frequently becomes enmeshed with larger political factors in cases involving politically significant figures such as Kejriwal. The assumption of guilt often overrides the presumption of innocence, especially when there is a lack of hard evidence to support the charges. This results in the replacement of accusations with nebulous claims of a “larger conspiracy,” which drags out investigations and denies people their freedom.

Kejriwal’s case was unique

In defence of its ruling, the court emphasized that Kejriwal’s case was unique and that decisions of this nature are not unusual, nor should they be seen as creating a standard for all politicians. The perception that this ruling would compromise the judiciary’s supposed impartiality is still being criticized, though. For example, why could Hemant Soren not be granted bail for campaigning yet Arvind Kejriwal, who is not standing in the Lok Sabha Elections, should? More importantly, why should Arvind Kejriwal be granted bail for his political activism when 4,34,302 Aam Aadmi, or 76% of all prisoners, are still being held as accused people? The public’s trust in the judiciary has undoubtedly been damaged by this extraordinary ruling, and the case for judicial changes may become much stronger.

The consequences that Arvind Kejriwal might have to deal with

As a result, the Supreme Court’s standing deteriorates while the common man languishes in jail. But Arvind Kejriwal, was granted a 21-day bail which permits him to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections, positioning himself as a potential Prime Ministerial contender and overshadowing other opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi, despite an ongoing inquiry into allegations that he destroyed 170 cell phones. He may perceive this temporary independence, prominence, and active participation all brought about by SC’s generosity as an optimal scenario.

This 21-day stint outside of prison could come at a potentially high cost for Arvind Kejriwal. The first of these expenses is associated with potential legal challenges. After June 2, when Kejriwal is supposed to turn himself in, getting more bail might be much harder. He then might use some medical urgency to stay out of jail on medical grounds. It is clear from the court’s decision to grant interim bail that the court felt differently about him. It’s likely that SC would have granted him regular bail eventually if the temporary bail had not been granted in the interim. He would also not be sent to prison again until a verdict was rendered and he was found guilty, just like with other ordinary bails. Stated differently, he would not have been far from his ordinary independence.

But given the circumstances, the SC might not be willing to grant him ordinary release anytime soon and might take a more careful stance in order to prevent charges of prejudice. This might result in Kejriwal serving a lengthy jail sentence, much like his colleague Manish Sisodia, who has been imprisoned in connection with the same liquor scam case for more than a year. Kejriwal also forfeits his chance to request bail in order to run for office in the next Delhi State Elections because of the existing bail. The SC cannot give bail in the same situation more than once. As a result, Kejriwal might not be allowed to run for office in his home state. The AAP, a party heavily focused on Arvind Keriwal, might end up losing Delhi in the course of events.

Delhi Government might be dismissed

If Arvind Kejriwal persists in holding the position of Chief Minister even after being imprisoned, the second price he might have to pay is the removal of his government. As everyone is aware, Kejriwal did not step down from his role as Chief Minister following his initial arrest. As a result, the administration became paralyzed and faced an unforeseen predicament. The court and the federal government were unable to reach a consensus due to the unique nature of the case. It is unfortunate that we have a CM who was serving from jail.

This might not happen again, though. In the event that he does not resign, the central government may consider dismissing him on the grounds of incapacitation resulting from his arrest, provided that he surrenders on June 2, which is also the day after the elections. This will probably be decided by the central government since it is untenable to have a government in the capital that is paralyzed.

Therefore, even while Kejriwal’s provisional bail permits him to campaign extensively, it casts a complex and gloomy shadow over both his and the AAP’s future. The possible loss of the Delhi administration, difficulties obtaining further bail, and tactical difficulties imply that this “victory” has serious potential drawbacks.  Kejriwal might not escape the consequences of the court’s ruling untouched, as the judiciary gets attacked for it. If Kejriwal and the AAP incurred long-term expenditures, the short-term benefits of this campaign phase will be worth it in the coming months.

Every Bharatiya who believes in justice must voice his disapproval in the face of such injustice. We should not ever undervalue the influence that your voice can have. Little rumblings signal the start of seismic changes. We should become a part of the struggle for logic and the right to free expression.

Our legal system is riddled with flaws, including ambiguous definitions of crimes and the misuse of the legal system, unclear standards for reasonableness and satisfaction, the replacement of charges and drawn-out investigations, political influence in court cases, and many more.

Policymakers and the general public, in addition to the judiciary, bear some of the responsibility for resolving issues related to Bharat’s criminal justice system. No matter a person’s political orientation, preserving democratic values and defending everyone’s rights depend on a just and equal system.

With the Supreme Court still carrying a heavy load, there is a greater need than ever for institutional changes and accountability. Restoration of public confidence in the criminal justice system, preservation of democratic ideals, and protection of individual rights all depend on the Court’s participation. The intricacies of the legal system are beyond comprehension for the average person. People in general will evaluate any incidents based on morals. In order to safeguard the rights of every person before the law and to guarantee justice, accountability, and transparency in court processes, immediate reforms are required.