The Supreme Court of India on August 27th granted bail to K Kavitha, a prominent leader of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), in connection with money laundering and corruption allegations stemming from the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case. This decision came after the court expressed its concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the investigations conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, questioned the agencies’ selective approach in treating certain accused as approvers, which they deemed unfair and arbitrary. The bench highlighted the fact that Kavitha, a BRS MLC, had been behind bars for the past five months and that the investigation had reached its conclusion with chargesheets filed in both the CBI and ED cases. They argued that further custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.
The court’s decision to grant bail to Kavitha follows a similar pattern observed in the case of Manish Sisodia, another prominent figure in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Both were granted bail by the Supreme Court, underscoring its commitment to ensuring that pre-trial detention does not morph into a form of punishment. The Supreme Court’s ruling also reflects its concern over the potential for prolonged pre-trial detention, considering that the trials in both cases are likely to be lengthy due to the vast number of witnesses (around 493) and the extensive documentary evidence (nearly 50,000 pages).
The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights several key points:
1.
Fairness of the Prosecution:
The court emphasized that the prosecution must be conducted fairly, criticizing the practice of selectively turning some accused into witnesses, while potentially targeting others unfairly.2.
Custodial Interrogation:
The court reiterated its position from the Manish Sisodia judgment, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention should not be used as a form of punishment.3.
Limited Value of Co-accused Statements:
The court questioned the evidentiary value of statements made by co-accused implicating other individuals, suggesting that such statements should not be the sole basis for conviction.4.
Contradiction in Delhi High Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court noted a contradiction in the Delhi High Court’s reasoning for denying Kavitha the benefit of Section 46 proviso of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing that the High Court’s logic lacked consistency.5.
Caution to Courts:
The Supreme Court issued a cautionary note to courts, reminding them to exercise discretion judicially when handling such matters. They emphasized that factors like a person’s education, social work, or political status should not be used to deny them the benefits available under the PMLA.With this ruling, Kavitha becomes the third prominent political figure to be released on bail in the Delhi Excise Policy case, following the earlier release of Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia, both leaders from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The case continues with Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal still in jail. The ED initially arrested Kavitha on March 15th, followed by her arrest by the CBI while she was in judicial custody for the ED case. This development marks a significant turning point in the Delhi Excise Policy case, with the Supreme Court’s decision raising further questions about the fairness and conduct of the investigations.
