In the year 2024, a duo of Chief Ministers encountered legal entanglements involving accusations of financial malfeasance. The erstwhile Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Hemant Soren, found himself in custody due to his alleged involvement in illicit transactions concerning land purportedly owned by the Indian Army in Ranchi. Soren relinquished his position as Chief Minister just prior to his apprehension on January 31.
Meanwhile, Arvind Kejriwal, the incumbent Chief Minister of Delhi, faced similar legal scrutiny, being arrested on March 21 under allegations of corruption linked to the now-defunct Delhi Liquor Excise policy. Both Soren and Kejriwal’s arrests were instigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a central authority entrusted with probing financial improprieties and breaches of foreign exchange regulations.
Despite the parallel circumstances surrounding their detentions, a notable disparity emerged – while Kejriwal secured interim release from the Supreme Court, Soren remained in custody.
The circumstances leading to Kejriwal’s release are noteworthy. On May 10, a panel of judges from the Supreme Court decreed his interim liberation. This ruling overturned previous decisions by the Rouse Avenue Court and Delhi High Court that had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest. The significance of the ongoing General Elections prominently influenced the Court’s verdict. This was underscored by the Court’s recognition of the national electoral process’s paramount importance for the year. Moreover, the Court acknowledged the need to consider the unique attributes of an individual when granting bail, emphasizing that neglecting such considerations would be unjust. In this context, the Court underscored that Kejriwal’s predicament couldn’t be equated to routine agricultural activities or business affairs.
Given Kejriwal’s role as the Chief Minister of Delhi and the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (which is a constituent of the Indian National Development Inclusive Alliance or I.N.D.I.A.), coupled with the backdrop of the General Elections, the Court mandated his provisional release. The Court also noted Kejriwal’s clean legal record and the contested legitimacy of his arrest. Kejriwal has been granted bail until June 1, with an obligation to surrender on June 2. Among the conditions of his bail, he is prohibited from accessing the Chief Minister’s Office or the Delhi Secretariat, endorsing official documents, commenting on the case, communicating with witnesses, or perusing official documents related to the case.
Meanwhile, in an intriguing development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court accorded interim bail to Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, the former Forest Minister of Punjab, enabling him to engage in electioneering for the Lok Sabha polls. Dharamsot had been detained in January 2024 in connection with alleged financial irregularities within Punjab’s Forest Department. Remarkably, the High Court’s decision in Dharamsot’s case was influenced by the Supreme Court’s ruling granting interim bail to Kejriwal.
The reasons behind Soren’s continued detention are less straightforward. With three constituencies in Jharkhand scheduled for polls on May 20, during the fifth phase of the Lok Sabha elections, it was argued that the circumstances surrounding Kejriwal’s case and the rationale behind the Supreme Court’s bail order should equally apply to Soren. However, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, who had recently granted bail to Kejriwal, declined to extend the same courtesy to Soren. While summoning the Enforcement Directorate to respond, the bench opted to schedule Soren’s bail petition for May 20. Despite efforts to expedite proceedings in the Jharkhand High Court, which ultimately dismissed Soren’s bail plea on May 3, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced.
Ultimately, the ability of a political figure to engage in electoral campaigning proved pivotal in Kejriwal’s release, contrasting starkly with Soren’s continued incarceration. The key divergence lies in Kejriwal’s status as an elected Chief Minister, a factor that may shed light on the Supreme Court’s disparate treatment of the two cases. The reasons behind the Court’s exercise of discretion in granting liberty to one politician while withholding it from another remain opaque, awaiting elucidation when Soren’s bail plea is heard on May 17.