Case comment: Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau

of Investigation (Crl.A. No. 3816/2024)

Participant code: 107 / University of Mumbai Thane-Sub Campus

1. Introduction

The case of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 revolves around allegations of corruption
linked to the Delhi Excise Policy (2021-2022). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has accused Delhi
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of financial misconduct and irregularities in the liquor licensing process.
This case has sparked intense legal battles, political debates, and public scrutiny which makes it one of the
most closely watched investigations in recent times.

Beyond the immediate legal questions, the case raises larger concerns about the role of investigative
agencies in a democratic system. Critics argue that central agencies like the CBI and Enforcement
Directorate (ED) are increasingly being used to target political opponents, while supporters see these
investigations as essential for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. The legal
proceedings have also touched on fundamental constitutional issues, such as due process, fairness in legal
procedures, and the balance of power between the state and central authorities. The Supreme Court`s ruling
in this case carries weighty implications—not just for Kejriwal personally, but for the broader governance
and legal framework in India. It has set a precedent on the limits of investigative powers while reinforcing
the fundamental righs of individuals under the constitution.

1. (Crl.A. No. 3816/2024)

Page 1 of 7
As the case continues to unfold, it remains at the center of political narratives and public discourse, shaping
how India views the relationship between law enforcement agencies and elected leaders.

2. Background and Facts of the case

Excise Policy Announcement & Allegations (2021-2022)

The Delhi government introduced a new excise policy aimed at modernizing liquor distribution. However,
allegations surfaced that the policy favored select vendors, leading to accusations of corruption. Opposition
parties demanded an investigation, citing undue advantages granted to certain businesses.

CBI Registers FIR & Corruption Charges (2022)

On 17.08.2022, the CBI registered a FIR alleging irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the
excise policy. The charges included falsification of records, undue benefits, and a larger conspiracy
involving government officials and liquor vendors. However, Kejriwal's name was not initially mentioned in
the FIR, He was arrested later under Art. 3562

ED & CBI Investigations Begin (2023-2024)

As corruption allegations gained traction, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI launched separate
investigations into suspected money laundering and policy manipulation. The agencies scrutinized financial
transactions, leading to multiple interrogations and summons.

First Arrests & Detentions (2023-2024)

Several businessmen, AAP leaders, and officials were arrested as part of the probe. Investigative agencies
linked financial transactions to key figures in the excise policy implementation. The crackdown intensified,
setting the stage for further legal action.

2. Prevention of Corruption Act, CrPc

3. S19, Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Page 2 of 7
Kejriwal’s Arrest by ED & Bail Proceedings (March - June 2024)

On 21.03.2024, Kejriwal was arrested by the ED U/S 193. The court granted him interim bail on 10.05.2024
until 01.06.2024, after which he surrendered on 02.06.2024. However, the ED moved swiftly to challenge
any relief, keeping him in judicial custody.

CBI Moves to Arrest Kejriwal (June 2024)

On 24.06.2024, the CBI sought permission from the Special Judge to interrogate Kejriwal. After
questioning, the agency moved to arrest him on 25.06.2024, citing new evidence. Since he was already in
judicial custody for the ED case, the CBI obtained a production warrant and officially took him into custody
on 26.06.2024.

Judicial Custody & Trial Court Proceedings (June - July 2024)

Following his arrest on 26.06.2024, Kejriwal was presented before the Trial Court, which initially remanded
him to five days of police custody. Later, on 29.06.2024, he was sent to judicial custody until 12.07.2024, as
investigations continued.

Legal Challenges Against Arrest (July 2024)

Kejriwal challenged his arrest before the Delhi High Court through a Writ Petition, arguing that his
detention was unlawful. His bail application was also submitted U/S 4394. The court scheduled hearings on
17.07.2024 to review both matters together.

High Court Decision on Arrest & Bail (August 2024)

On 05.08.2024, the High Court upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, ruling that it was conducted legally U/S 415. The
court also denied him bail, citing the complexity of the allegations and the need for further investigation into
his role in the alleged conspiracy.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail (July 2024)

4. S439 of CrPC.
5. 41(2) of CrPC.

Page 3 of 7
In a parallel case, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail on 12.07.2024 in the ED matter. However despite
this relief, he remained in custody due to the ongoing CBI case and the pending High Court decision on his bail plea.

The High Court denied Kejriwal’s request for regular bail, instructing him to approach the Sessions Court
after the chargesheet was filed. The ruling emphasized that the complexity of the case warranted a detailed
examination before any bail could be granted.

Final Appeal Before Supreme Court (Ongoing)

Kejriwal has now approached the Supreme Court, challenging both the legality of his arrest and the denial of
regular bail. The case remains under judicial scrutiny, with the highest court set to decide on the matter.

3. Issues

Questions of Fact
• Was Arvind Kejriwal directly involved in the alleged corruption?
• Was there a financial link between AAP and the companies benefiting from the policy?
• Did Kejriwal personally receive any monetary benefits?

Questions of Law
• Was Kejriwal’s arrest justified under the Prevention of Corruption Act and PMLA? (Article 356)6
• Did the CBI violate procedural requirements while making the arrest?

Does arresting a sitting Chief Minister infringe upon the principles of federalism

4. Both Parties' Contentions

CBI’s Contentions:

1. Direct Involvement: Kejriwal played a crucial role in framing the excise policy that led to corruption.

2. Money Trail Evidence: Financial transactions allegedly linked AAP’s election funds to bribes received
from liquor traders.

6. Art. 356 of PMLA, CrPC.

Page 4 of 7
3. Non-Cooperation: Kejriwal was allegedly uncooperative with investigations, necessitating his custodial
interrogation.

Kejriwal’s Defense:
1. Political Vendetta: He claimed that the case was politically motivated to weaken the opposition
before elections.
2. Lack of Evidence: His legal team argued that there was no conclusive evidence directly linking him
to corruption.
3. Violation of Due Process: The defense cited procedural lapses, including his arrest without proper
summons.

5. Legal Lacuna (Loopholes)

• Lack of Direct Evidence: No concrete evidence was presented that linked Kejriwal to monetary
transactions.
• Delayed Investigation: The case was filed two years after the policy was revoke raising
questions about its urgency
• Political Bias: Selective targeting of opposition leaders while ignoring similar allegations against
ruling party politicians.
• Procedural Violations: The defense highlighted flaws in the arrest procedure under CrPC and
PMLA.

6. Legal Principles and Relevant Cases Involved

Legal Provisions Applied:

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Defines offenses related to bribery and abuse of power.
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Regulates financial crimes and illegal fund
transfers.
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 – Determines the procedural aspects of arrest and trial.

Relevant Cases Cited:

1. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)7 – Addressed custodial interrogation of
political figures.

7. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 4 SCC 831; AIR 2019 SC 4064

Page 5 of 7
 1. Anil Deshmukh v. Enforcement Directorate (2021)8 – Established judicial review over
investigative agency actions.
2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)9 – Reinforced principles of individual liberty against
arbitrary detention.

7. Judgement from All Jurisdiction

A. Trial Court Ruling:

The Delhi Trial Court, U/S 167 10 upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, stating that CBI had sufficient evidence to justify
custodial interrogation.

B. Delhi High Court Ruling

The Delhi High Court also denied Kejriwal’s bail ruling that investigative agencies had a prima facie case.

C. Supreme Court Ruling (September 13, 2024):

The Supreme Court granted Kejriwal bail, citing:

1. Lack of Strong Evidence: The court ruled that prolonged detention without solid proof was
unjustified.
2. Fundamental Rights Violation: Arbitrary arrest of a political leader without substantial grounds
was a violation of due process.
3. Judicial Oversight: The ruling emphasized the need for courts to protect individuals from misuse of
investigative powers

8. Analysis
The case has far-reaching legal and political implications:

1. Judicial Oversight Over Investigative Agencies: The Supreme Court reinforced that investigative
bodies must not act arbitrarily.

8. Anil Deshmukh v. Enforcement Directorate, (2021) 4 SCC 453; AIR 2021 SC 479
9. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569; AIR 1994 SC 1103

10. S167 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973

11. (Crl.A. No. 3816/2024)

Page 6 of 7
 2. Impact on Political Landscape: The case exposed concerns about the potential misuse of central
agencies to target opposition parties.
3. Precedent for Future Cases: This ruling will serve as a guiding case for future corruption
allegations involving politicians.

9. Conclusion

The Arvind Kejriwal vs. CBI 11 case is more than just a legal battle—it is a defining moment for India's
judicial and political landscape. At its core, the case is about how investigative powers should be exercised
and where the line must be drawn to protect individual freedoms. While corruption is undoubtedly a serious
issue that affects governance, the Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that due process is not compromised in the
name of accountability. It sends a clear message: law enforcement agencies must base their actions on
strong, credible evidence rather than unverified allegations. This principle is essential in any democracy,
where the law is meant to serve justice, not political interests.

This cease also shines a spotlight on the independence of investigative bodies like the CBI and ED. These
agencies exist to uphold the law, but their effectiveness depends on their ability to function without political
pressure or bias. The ruling reinforces the idea that while these institutions must remain powerful enough to

investigate corruption fearlessly, they cannot be misused as tools for political battles. The Supreme Court’s
judgment acts as a safeguard against arbitrary arrests and prolonged detentions, ensuring that even high-
profile cases adhere to fair legal procedures. If investigative agencies are to maintain public trust, they must
operate with transparency and accountability, rather than becoming instruments of political strategy.

Bayond the courtroom, this case carries larger implications for democracy and governance. It serves as a
reminder that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, especially in politically
sensitive cases. When legal actions target elected representatives, the stakes are high—not just for
individuals involved but for the democratic framework as a whole. The verdict in this case helps shape how
future corruption investigations will be handled, emphasizing that the rule of law should be upheld above
political rivalries. By reinforcing constitutional protections, the ruling ensures that governance and law
enforcement remain separate, preventing power from being misused under the guise of justice

Page 7 of 7