In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, who was arrested earlier this year by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam. This high-profile case also involves Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy, Manish Sisodia.
Background of the Case
K Kavitha is the second prominent opposition leader to secure bail in this ongoing investigation, following Manish Sisodia’s release earlier this month. The Supreme Court, while granting her bail, underscored the prolonged delay in the trial and emphasized that indefinite detention would violate the fundamental rights of the accused.
Despite obtaining bail in the ED case, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal remains behind bars as he has not yet secured bail in the related CBI case. The Supreme Court recently denied him relief, highlighting the ongoing complexities in the Delhi liquor policy scam investigation.
Supreme Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to K Kavitha was grounded in several key observations. Notably, the court highlighted that K Kavitha had already been incarcerated for over five months, and the trial is unlikely to commence soon despite the investigation being complete. The two-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan noted that undertrial custody should not be allowed to turn into a form of punishment, stating, “She (K Kavitha) has been behind bars for 5 months. The likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future is impossible.”
Additionally, the court underscored the need for judicial sensitivity and sympathy towards women accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Referring to Section 45 of the PMLA, the court pointed out that certain categories of accused, including women, are entitled to bail without fulfilling the twin conditions typically required. The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision to deny bail to Kavitha on the grounds of her education and status, arguing that such reasoning “misapplied” the law.
MUST READ: K Kavitha Granted Bail In Money Laundering & Corruption Case: SC
Supreme Court’s Critique of Lower Court’s Decision
The bench asserted, “The courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise discretion judicially. The court cannot say that merely because a woman is highly educated, or an MLA, (she) should be denied the benefit of bail.” The court also highlighted that making a distinction based on a woman’s education or sophistication could set a dangerous precedent, potentially denying bail to educated women unjustly.
The Supreme Court further noted, “If this Delhi High Court order is allowed to become law, these perverse observations would mean no educated woman can get bail. On the contrary, we say courts should not differ between an MP and a common person, but here (High Court is) finding an artificial discretion not there in the statute.”
Prosecution’s Arguments and Defense
During the proceedings, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kavitha, argued that it is standard practice for women to be granted bail, especially when considering their familial responsibilities. He pointed out that Kavitha is a mother to two children, one of whom is a minor undergoing medical care due to shock. Despite the allegations against her, Rohatgi noted that the authorities had not recovered the ₹100 crore that the ‘South group’ allegedly paid to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for liquor licenses.
The prosecution countered by questioning Kavitha’s actions, such as allegedly deleting key evidence, including text messages, from her mobile phone. However, Kavitha’s defense refuted these claims, with her counsel stating, “How can you say I ‘destroyed’ my phone… people change phones.” The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution’s arguments regarding the deleted messages, with Justice Viswanathan commenting, “People delete messages… normal conduct. Any of us in this room (do it).”
Bail Conditions and Implications
The Supreme Court imposed several conditions on Kavitha’s release, including prohibitions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Kavitha has also been directed to pay bail bonds of ₹10 lakh.
This ruling represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing Delhi liquor policy scam investigation, reflecting the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of the accused while ensuring that the judicial process remains fair and just. The case continues to draw significant public and media attention as it unfolds, with implications for political figures across multiple parties.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to K Kavitha has stirred debates about judicial discretion, the rights of the accused, and the interpretation of laws such as the PMLA. As the investigation progresses, the spotlight remains on the legal proceedings and their potential impact on political dynamics in Delhi and beyond.
By maintaining a firm stance on the principles of justice and equality before the law, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of a fair trial and the protection of individual rights in India’s legal framework.
ALSO READ: Kolkata Rape & Murder Case: Timeline of Accused Sanjoy Roy, Hours Before the Crime
