In a recent, rather controversial decision, the Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, so that he could campaign in the Lok Sabah Elections. While this decision may seem like a victory for Kejriwal, it comes with significant costs that could potentially impact his political future, along with the judiciary’s reputation.
Impact on the Judiciary
The cost that the Judiciary might pay for this is somewhat better understood. The apex court’s decision has already sparked the debate on the Judiciary’s ability to use discretion arbitrarily. In this particular case of Arvind Kejriwal, the Court may set a precedent that politicians are a special class of citizens.
The court has defended its decision by stating that interim bail was granted based on the specific facts of Kejriwal’s case, emphasizing that such decisions are not that uncommon and should not be seen as establishing a general rule for all politicians. However, the criticism remains that this decision could undermine the perceived neutrality of the judiciary. What is it about Arvind Kejriwal, who himself is not standing in Lok Sabha Elections, that he should get bail for campaigning, and, say, Hemant Soren should not? Even more pertinently, what is it about Arvind Kejriwal that he should get bail for campaigning while 75.8% of total prisoners, a whopping 4,34,302 aam aadmis, remain in jail as undertrials?
This unprecedented decision has surely eroded the judiciary’s goodwill with the citizenry, and we may see a significant strengthening of the call for judicial reforms.
The Price Arvind Kejriwal may need to pay
The common man languishing in prison pays the price, and the Supreme Court’s reputation suffers. But what about Arvind Kejriwal himself? His 21-day bail, amid an investigation where he allegedly destroyed 170 mobile phones, allows him to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections, presenting himself as a future prime ministerial candidate and overshadowing other opposition leaders such as Rahul Gandhi. This interim freedom, visibility, and active participation, all due to the largesse shown by SC, may look like a win-win situation for him. But is it?
Not really. Arvind Kejriwal may end up paying a potentially steep price for this 21-day sojourn outside prison. The first of these costs will be related to future judicial challenges. Post-June 2, when Kejriwal is required to surrender, obtaining further bail could prove significantly more difficult. With the decision of SC in favour of interim bail, it is apparent that SC had a softer outlook towards him. If the interim bail had not been given in between, there is a high chance that SC, over a period of time, would have given him regular bail. And as with such regular bails, he would not have to face prison again until a judgment was delivered and he got convicted. In other words, his regular freedom would not have been far.
However, now under scrutiny, the SC may not be inclined to consider his regular bail soon and adopt a more cautious approach to avoid accusations of bias. This could mean a prolonged period of incarceration for Kejriwal, similar to his colleague Manish Sisodia, who has been in jail for over a year in the same liquor scam case. With the current bail, Kejriwal also loses the opportunity to demand bail to campaign in the upcoming Delhi State Elections. The SC cannot repeatedly grant bail under similar circumstances. Consequently, Kejriwal may be unable to campaign in his own state election. AAP, being a very Arvind Keriwal-centric party, may well lose Delhi in the process.
Delhi Government May be Dismissed on 2nd June
The second cost that Arvind Kejriwal may pay is the dismissal of his government if he insists on retaining CM ship despite being incarcerated. As we all know, during his first arrest, Kejriwal did not resign, maintaining his position as Chief Minister. This led to an unprecedented situation and a paralyzed administration. Given the uniqueness of the situation, neither the court nor the central government could take any decisions on the same. And we had a CM serving from jail.
However, this may not be repeated. His upcoming surrender on June 2, which is also post-elections, allows the central government to consider dismissing his government on the grounds of incapacitation due to imprisonment if he did not resign. The central government is likely to take this decision, as a paralyzed government in the capital is untenable.
Thus, while Kejriwal’s interim bail allows him to campaign significantly, it casts a dark and complex shadow on his and AAP’s future. The potential loss of the Delhi government, challenges in securing future bail, and strategic complications suggest that this “victory” comes with significant potential pitfalls. As the judiciary faces criticism for its decision, Kejriwal, too, may not emerge unscathed from the repercussions. The coming months will reveal whether the short-term gains of this campaigning period were worth the long-term costs that Kejriwal and the AAP might incur.
