GUWAHATI: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extraordinary interim bail” in connection with several criminal cases, including one investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The cases, currently under inquiry or trial, revolve around the controversial Delhi excise policy.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the PIL, stating that it was not maintainable. The judges emphasised that Kejriwal, who is in judicial custody, has the means to approach the court and file appropriate proceedings if he wishes to seek bail. They added that the court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot grant extraordinary interim bail for a person holding high office.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The PIL, filed by a fourth-year law student using the name “We the People of India,” sought Kejriwal's release, arguing that his detention was impacting governance in Delhi. The petitioner expressed concern over the safety and security of Kejriwal, citing recent high-profile incidents in custody, including the killings of gangster Tillu Tajpuriya and politician Atiq Ahmed.
However, the court dismissed these arguments, pointing out that the petitioner had no power of attorney to represent Kejriwal and could not offer a personal bond or undertake that Kejriwal would not influence witnesses. Senior advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Kejriwal, described the petition as "publicity interest litigation" and criticised the petitioner for attempting to act on behalf of the Chief Minister without authority.
ALSO READ: Gauhati HC Demands Details On Fish Safety Measures In Assam
The PIL argued that as the Chief Minister, Kejriwal's absence from office would adversely affect the administration in Delhi, impacting three crore residents. It also highlighted concerns about medical care and education due to Kejriwal's detention. The court dismissed these claims, emphasising that the judiciary's role is not to interfere with the ongoing legal process.
In light of the dismissal, the High Court reminded that personal interests must be subordinate to national interests.
