Why Did Arvind Kejriwal and His Legal Team Decide to Take Their Chances in the District Court Instead of the Supreme Court?

Navigating through the complexities of the legal system is more than just presenting facts and arguments in a courtroom. An essential aspect that seasoned lawyers consider is the court's historical response to similar cases. This strategic consideration played a pivotal role in the decision-making process for Arvind Kejriwal and his legal team regarding where to contest his case following his arrest related to the alleged liquor policy scam.

A significant event on 22nd March shed light on the Supreme Court's current stance towards cases involving allegations of corruption against politicians. The court unmistakably signaled its reluctance to offer leniency to politicians embroiled in corruption cases. This was evident when the Supreme Court, on the very same day, refused to grant relief to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, who was arrested in connection with the same case as Kejriwal.

The decision to reject Ms. Kavitha's plea for relief was made by the same bench that was set to hear Arvind Kejriwal's petition. This bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice MM Sundresh, and Justice Bela Trivedi, made it clear that seeking immediate Supreme Court intervention without first going through the lower courts was not a viable option, even for high-profile individuals like senior political figures or a Chief Minister.

The bench's directive for Ms. Kavitha to seek relief, including bail, from the trial court was a clear indication of the Supreme Court's approach to such matters. This precedent was crucial in shaping Kejriwal's legal strategy. Rather than pursuing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, where recent decisions suggested a dim view of bypassing lower courts, Kejriwal and his team opted to present their case in the district court.

An interesting twist in the narrative involved lawyer Kapil Sibal, who, while representing a similar case, made a bold statement to the Supreme Court, suggesting that history might judge the court harshly for its decisions in these cases. However, the bench responded firmly to Sibal's dramatic assertion, reinforcing their stance that the appropriate course of action was to seek relief through the lower courts.

This series of events and judicial attitudes underscore why Arvind Kejriwal and his legal team decided to redirect their efforts towards the district court. The Supreme Court's clear message on 22nd March, along with its reaction to similar cases, highlighted the strategic necessity of pursuing justice through the established hierarchical judicial process, starting with the lower courts.

In a remarkable coincidence, the bench that had previously refused relief to K Kavitha, another politician arrested in the same liquor policy scam, was also scheduled to review the petition filed against Arvind Kejriwal's arrest. This scenario presented a significant insight into the probable outcomes for Kejriwal's plea in the Supreme Court.

Understanding the gravity of the situation and the precedent set by the Supreme Court's recent actions, Arvind Kejriwal came to the realization that the likelihood of the Supreme Court granting him relief from arrest was minimal. This understanding stemmed from the court's decision regarding K Kavitha, who was embroiled in the same legal battle as Kejriwal. The denial of relief to Kavitha was a clear indicator of the court's stance, suggesting a consistent approach towards cases of this nature.

Given these circumstances, it was a strategic move on part of Kejriwal and his legal team to withdraw the petition from the Supreme Court. This decision was driven by a realistic assessment of the situation, acknowledging that the Supreme Court's recent precedent indicated a probable refusal to grant Kejriwal any form of relief.

Another layer of complexity in this legal strategy involves the role of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in this case. The ED, tasked with fighting Kejriwal's petition, was expected to present substantial evidence linking Kejriwal to the liquor scam. The anticipation of the ED revealing compelling evidence against Kejriwal in the Supreme Court posed a significant risk. It raised concerns about the potential early exposure of facts detrimental to Kejriwal's case and the Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) political narrative. Opting to withdraw from the Supreme Court, Kejriwal's team aimed to mitigate the immediate risk of damaging revelations, preserving their strategy and narrative for a more controlled environment.

In light of these considerations, Arvind Kejriwal's legal battle will now transition to the district court. This move to challenge the arrest at a lower judicial level, where Kejriwal will be produced for remand by the Enforcement Directorate, represents a calculated shift in legal tactics.

Details of the Liquor Scam in which K Kavitha and Arvind Kejriwal Have Been Arrested

The controversy surrounding the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022 has led to the arrest of significant political figures, including K Kavitha and Arvind Kejriwal. This policy, initially proposed in September 2020, only came into effect in November 2021, introducing a radical shift in the sale of alcohol in the National Capital. For the first time, the policy opened the market to private players and signaled the withdrawal of government-run liquor shops.

Under this new policy, Delhi was strategically divided into 32 zones, with each zone accommodating a total of 27 private vendors. This meant that in every municipal ward, residents would find 2-3 liquor stores, enhancing accessibility and convenience. Moreover, the policy proposed innovative changes such as the home delivery of liquor, permission for liquor vendors to offer unlimited discounts, and the extension of store operating hours until 3 am. These proposals were presented to the Delhi Cabinet for approval.

The implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022 led to a significant 27% increase in government revenue, amounting to ₹8900 crores. This increase was a testament to the policy's impact on the liquor market in Delhi, simultaneously marking the government's complete exit from the liquor business. While the policy aimed to eradicate black marketing and dismantle the liquor mafia, it soon became embroiled in controversies over alleged corruption.

The Chief Secretary of Delhi, Naresh Kumar, discovered irregularities and procedural lapses within the new liquor policy framework. Acting on these findings, Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena initiated a CBI probe, following the recommendation from Naresh Kumar. A particularly contentious decision involved Manish Sisodia waiving off a substantial license fee of ₹144.36 crores, which was owed by private liquor vendors, citing the Coronavirus pandemic as justification.

This waiver not only led to a significant loss for the Excise Department but also unduly favored the liquor licensees by eliminating the import pass fee of ₹50 per beer case. Crucially, these changes were implemented without the final nod from the Lieutenant Governor, rendering them illegal under the stipulations of the Delhi Excise Rules of 2010 and the Transaction of Business Rules of 1993.

The controversy surrounding the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022 escalated significantly in July 2022 when the Delhi government decided to retract its newly established excise policy. This policy, which had introduced significant changes to the liquor market in the National Capital, became the center of a sprawling corruption investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) subsequently lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against Manish Sisodia, the former CEO of Only Much Louder (OML) Vijay Nair, and 13 others, citing "irregularities" in the policy's implementation.

February 2023 saw the arrest of Manish Sisodia, a pivotal moment that underscored the gravity of the accusations related to the excise policy. This event was followed by the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, on 21st March 2024. Kejriwal, who had prominently positioned himself as an anti-corruption advocate, faced the stark irony of being apprehended over corruption charges. This marked a significant turn in the narrative for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, who had previously been vocal in his crusade against corrupt practices.

The saga further unfolded with the arrest of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha. The action against Kavitha came after raids by the Income Tax Department and the Enforcement Directorate at her residence in Hyderabad, unveiling her alleged involvement in the excise policy scam. The enforcement agencies have identified Kavitha as a key figure within the 'South Cartel', a group allegedly tied to receiving payments connected to the scandal. This revelation came to light following the arrest of Sisodia, drawing Kavitha into the vortex of the investigation.

These arrests and the investigation into the Delhi Excise Policy have cast a shadow over the involved parties, bringing to light the intricate and often hidden dynamics of political and financial wrongdoing. The case continues to unravel, revealing the complexities of governance, policy-making, and the enforcement of law in the face of alleged corruption.