Supreme Court Grants Bail to K. Kavita in Delhi Excise Policy Case, Criticizes Delhi High Court’s Denial, Observations
(Judicial Quest News Network)
27, August,2024
In a landmark decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) leader K. Kavita, who has been embroiled in a high-profile case involving alleged corruption related to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022. This ruling by the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan is notable not only for the relief it provides Kavita but also for the court’s strong criticism of the Delhi High Court’s earlier denial of bail and its controversial observations regarding gender and bail provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after a protracted legal battle. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initiated proceedings against Kavita, accusing her of involvement in bribery and money laundering related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy. The case centers on allegations that the policy was manipulated to benefit certain entities and that the proceeds were allegedly funneled to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to support its campaign efforts, including in the Goa Assembly elections.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it addresses the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny bail based on observations that Kavita, an educated and socially active individual, did not qualify for the special considerations afforded to women under Section 45 of the PMLA. The High Court’s stance was criticized by the Supreme Court for being potentially discriminatory, suggesting that such reasoning could set a precedent where educated women are unjustly denied bail.
In its order, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Delhi High Court’s observations were inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. The High Court had noted Kavita’s educational background and social contributions but denied her bail on the grounds that she was not a “vulnerable” individual. The Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting that a court’s approach should not vary between individuals based on their educational status or contributions but should be grounded in legal fairness and the specifics of the case.
The Supreme Court also noted that the investigation into Kavita’s case had concluded, and with the charge sheet filed, continued detention was not necessary. The court criticized the notion that pre-trial custody should amount to punishment, particularly when a trial’s completion seems distant.
In its deliberations, the Supreme Court addressed arguments related to Kavita’s alleged tampering with evidence, specifically the formatting of her mobile phone. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued that this act constituted evidence tampering, but senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi countered that formatting a phone was a common practice and did not inherently imply guilt. The Court appeared to agree with this perspective, noting that the mere act of formatting a phone did not constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail.
The Court also scrutinized the implications of statements made by co-accused individuals and questioned the evidentiary value of such statements when retracted. It emphasized the need for concrete evidence beyond mere allegations or retracted statements to justify ongoing detention.
Kavita’s release on bail follows similar decisions by the Supreme Court in cases involving other AAP leaders, such as Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia, who were granted bail earlier. The Supreme Court’s decision today reinforces its commitment to ensuring that legal procedures are applied consistently and fairly, regardless of an individual’s social or educational status.
The ruling is expected to have broader implications for how courts handle bail applications under the PMLA, particularly concerning the treatment of women and the application of legal provisions.
Top of Form
