The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that “any special concession” to him “would.. amount to anathema to the rule of law and equality”.
The ED in its affidavit filed in the court on Thursday vehemently opposed granting any interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections. It said that granting bail to the AAP leader would create “two separate classes in the country viz. ordinary people who are bound by the rule of law as well as the laws of the country and politicians who can seek exemption from the laws…”.
The agency said that “the right to campaign for an election is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right and not even a legal right” and to its knowledge, “no political leader has been granted interim bail for campaigning even though he is not the contesting candidate”.
The ED said that “even a contesting candidate is not granted interim bail if he is in custody for his own campaigning” and added that “even the right to vote while in judicial custody which is considered by this Court as a statutory/constitutional right, is curtailed by statute by virtue of section 62(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act, and upheld” in the 1997 ruling in Anukul Chandra Pradhan v Union of India.
The affidavit pointed out that “around 123 elections have taken place in the last 5 years” and said “if interim bail is to be granted for the purpose of campaigning in an election then no politician can be arrested and kept in judicial custody since elections are all year round phenomena”.
The ED said, “In a federal structure, no set of election is more significant than another and therefore, every politician at every level would argue that if he is not let out on interim bail, he would suffer irreversible consequences.”
It added, “Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act alone, presently there are many politicians who are in judicial custody and their cases are examined by competent courts upholding their custody. There must be several political leaders in judicial custody throughout the country in non-PMLA offences. There is no reason why a special prayer for a special treatment by the petitioner be acceded to.”
The agency contended that “grant of interim bail merely for political campaigning would militate against and will be discriminatory to the rule of equality as work/business/profession or activity of every citizen is equally important to him or her. It would not be possible to hold that work of a small farmer or a small trader is any less important than political campaigning of a political leader who admittedly is not contesting”.
The ED said that Kejriwal had cited “the very same excuse of state elections in 5 states” in his reply dated November 2, 2023 to summons dated October 30, 2023, “in order to avoid the summons…and during the arguments on interim bail…is setting up the same ground of campaigning in general elections to seek interim bail”.
It said that if the court grants Arvind Kejriwal interim bail, “it will be giving judicial imprimatur to” his action “to avoid summons citing the reason of campaigning in state elections being a “star campaigner” of the Aam Aadmi Party” and “seek interim bail for campaigning for Aam Aadmi Party in the general elections thereby carving out a separate class in favour of politicians who wish to campaign for their respective political parties”.
With inputs from PTI.
Link to article –
ED opposes interim bail to Kejriwal, says ‘right to campaign neither fundamental nor constitutional’
