Delhi High Court Issues 'Last and Final Opportunity' to ED in Kejriwal Bail Challenge

New Delhi – In a significant procedural development with substantive undertones, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a stern ultimatum to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), granting it a “last and final opportunity” to present arguments in its challenge against the regular bail granted to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal. The matter, which pertains to the money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy, has seen repeated adjournments, prompting pointed observations from the bench and sharp criticism from the defense.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while reluctantly allowing the agency's request for an adjournment, underscored the court's dwindling patience with the delays. The case was subsequently listed for November 10, with a clear directive to the ED's counsel to ensure the hearing proceeds without fail.

A Hearing Marked by Opposition to Delay

The day's proceedings were set for the ED to advance its arguments challenging the June 20, 2024, order by a trial court that had granted bail to Mr. Kejriwal. However, counsel for the ED requested an adjournment, citing the unavailability of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, who was reportedly engaged before a Chief Justice of India-led bench in the Supreme Court.

This request was met with vehement opposition from Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Mr. Kejriwal. Mr. Chaudhari informed the court that this was the ninth such adjournment sought by the central agency, arguing that the delays were tactical and without "any rhyme or reason." He contended that the ED was unnecessarily prolonging the matter, which he framed as an issue of political leverage rather than legal merit.

“Identical cancellation of bail petitions filed in the Supreme Court - withdrawn. Identical cancellation of petitions filed in the High Court - withdrawn. All (accused) have been granted bail. There is nothing left in this. Am I the chosen one? It is political mileage, nothing else,” Mr. Chaudhari argued, highlighting a pattern of litigation strategy that he suggested singled out his client.

Justice Dudeja acknowledged the defense's position, orally remarking to the ED's counsel that the hearing date had been fixed with the consent of both parties and was intended for substantive arguments and disposal. Despite this, the court ultimately granted the adjournment in the "interest of justice," but not without the weighty qualifier:

“Considering that the ASG is not available today as being held up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, a last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner department to submit its arguments.”

Legal and Procedural Implications

The court's explicit use of "last and final opportunity" is legally significant. It transforms the next hearing date from a routine listing into a peremptory one. Should the ED fail to proceed with arguments on November 10, the court would be well within its judicial authority to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution or decide the matter based on the existing record, which could have definitive consequences for the ED's challenge.

This judicial admonition brings into focus the delicate balance between accommodating the schedules of senior law officers in high-profile cases and upholding the litigant's right to a speedy and fair resolution. For legal practitioners, the repeated adjournments and the court's ultimate response serve as a case study in procedural law, highlighting the potential for litigation tactics to test judicial patience and the tools available to a court to prevent the abuse of process.

The Broader Context of Kejriwal's Legal Battles

The High Court hearing does not exist in a vacuum. It is a crucial part of a multi-pronged legal battle Mr. Kejriwal has been fighting since his arrest by the ED on March 21, 2024. The timeline is complex and pivotal to understanding the current proceedings:

• June 20, 2024: A vacation judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts granted regular bail to Mr. Kejriwal, a decision the ED immediately challenged.
• June 2024: The Delhi High Court, upon an urgent mention by the ED, stayed the trial court's bail order, preventing Mr. Kejriwal's release under that order.
• July 12, 2024: In a separate but related proceeding, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Mr. Kejriwal. More significantly, the apex court referred his petition challenging the "need and necessity of arrest" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to a larger bench, raising fundamental questions about the powers of the ED.

Mr. Kejriwal remains on interim bail pursuant to the Supreme Court's order. The ED's challenge in the High Court is predicated on its argument that the trial court's bail order overlooked crucial evidence and failed to properly apply the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. This section requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.

The Path Forward: A Decisive Hearing Awaits

The November 10 hearing is now set to be a decisive one. The ED will be under immense pressure to present its complete case against the trial court's bail order. Legal experts will be closely watching ASG Raju's submissions, which are expected to focus on the alleged misinterpretation of evidence and the incorrect application of PMLA's bail provisions by the lower court.

Conversely, Mr. Kejriwal's defense team, led by Mr. Chaudhari, is likely to reiterate its arguments regarding procedural delays, political motivations, and the fact that other co-accused in the case have secured bail. They will also emphasize the Supreme Court's decision to examine the foundational aspects of arrest under the PMLA, suggesting that the very basis of the ED's case is under a constitutional cloud.

Justice Dudeja's order has effectively drawn a line in the sand. The court has signaled that the phase of procedural accommodations is over, and the time for substantive legal arguments has arrived. The outcome of the next hearing will not only determine the fate of the ED's petition but also send a strong message about judicial tolerance for delays in high-stakes criminal litigation.