In the realm of judicial discourse, the Supreme Court, on the occasion of Thursday, iterated the lucidity of its decree granting provisional liberty to the luminary figure of New Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal. The pronouncement resounded with clarity, emphasizing the absence of preferential treatment for any individual, regardless of stature. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected, expressing disquiet over Kejriwal’s post-release declaration, wherein he propositioned that electoral endorsement could circumvent his judicial encumbrances.
Mehta, representing the Enforcement Directorate, tendered before a bench presided over by justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, citing Kejriwal’s electoral rhetoric, prophesying his potential re-incarceration within a fortnight. The bench reaffirmed the sanctity of its decree, asserting that electoral victories cannot obviate legal obligations. “Had the electorate endorsed the broom, emblematic of the AAP, my sojourn to the penitentiary would have been averted,” retorted Mehta, casting aspersions on Kejriwal’s assertions. Justice Khanna dismissed such conjectures as fallacious and reaffirmed the unequivocal nature of the court’s decree.
A M Singhvi, the senior counsel representing Kejriwal, expressed incredulity at his client’s pronouncements and pledged to submit an affidavit impugning governmental malfeasance. Justice Khanna, while acknowledging the prerogative of dissent, underscored the irrevocability of the court’s edict. “Our pronouncement is unambiguous; we have delineated a timeline wherein Kejriwal must surrender himself on June 2,” affirmed Justice Khanna. “The edicts of this apex institution are immutable; they shall prevail to uphold the sanctity of the rule of law,” he added.
“Our pronouncement brooks no exceptions; it reflects a discerning appraisal of the circumstances,” reiterated Justice Khanna. Mehta deprecated Kejriwal’s assertions as an affront to the institution, prompting the bench to steer the discourse back to legal exigencies.
The apex tribunal is currently seized with Kejriwal’s petition, challenging the Delhi High Court’s validation of his apprehension in connection with the purported Delhi excise policy imbroglio.