- Prelims Test Series (PTS) for Prelims 2027 starts 11th Oct. 2026 Click Here to know more →
- [Pre-order] Ethics Redbook 3rd Edition: Delivery starts from 10th October onwards Click Here to Read More →
- 21 Sept. | Forum Residential Coaching (FRC) for UPSC preparation Click Here to know more →
- 21 Sept. | GS Advance Program (GSAP) for UPSC 2027 Mains starts from 10th Oct. Click Here to Read More →
Source: The post judicial view on Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest has been created, based on the article “Arvind Kejriwal’s bail: From Supreme Court, a limited relief” published in “Indian Express” on 14th September 2024
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- judiciary
Context: The article discusses Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s judgment granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal and criticizing the CBI’s illegal arrest. It highlights judicial reluctance to defend civil rights, procedural misuse, and the need for clearer self-incrimination protections under Article 20(3).
For detailed information on The Need for a Bail Law read this article here
What is the Judicial view on Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest?
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Found Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI illegal, stating it aimed to prevent his bail in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. He criticized the CBI for using procedural technicalities as punishment.
- Justice Surya Kant: Agreed that Kejriwal should be granted bail but accepted the CBI’s reasons for his arrest without deeper scrutiny.
- CBI’s Justification: The CBI claimed Kejriwal’s arrest was due to his “evasive replies” and lack of cooperation. Justice Bhuyan dismissed this reasoning, emphasizing that such grounds violate Article 20(3) on self-incrimination rights.
- Delhi High Court: Criticized by Justice Bhuyan for unnecessarily directing Kejriwal to seek bail from the trial court again, despite hearing detailed arguments earlier.
What Broader Issues Does the Judgment Highlight?
- Denial of Bail in High-Profile Cases: Courts tend to deny bail in high-profile cases without legal justification. Justice Bhuyan highlighted this problem, urging courts to protect personal liberty.
- Right Against Self-Incrimination: The judgment questions the limited interpretation of Article 20(3) in the Kathi Kalu Oghad case (1961), which restricted self-incrimination rights during pre-trial investigations.
- Judiciary’s Reluctance to Challenge the Government: Justice Bhuyan pointed out a growing trend where courts, especially in high-profile cases, avoid challenging the government, potentially compromising civil rights.
Question for practice:
Examine how Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s judgment on Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest addresses the misuse of procedural technicalities and the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
