Advertisement
Kejriwal, lodged in judicial custody in the alleged excise scam, was hitherto entitled to two meetings with his lawyers a week, in accordance with prison rules.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted the relief to Kejriwal in recognition of his fundamental right to fair trial and effective legal representation.
The AAP leader’s counsel had submitted he was facing around 35 cases across the country and, for a fair trial, he required two additional meetings with his lawyers via video conference.
Related Articles
Advertisement
The high court rejected the contention that it would amount to special treatment to Kejriwal, saying it is not a situation where any special favour has been sought. It is a fundamental right which has been sought to be enforced, the judge said.
“Special situations call for special remedies. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that in recognition of fundamental right of fair trial and effective legal representation, the petitioner be granted two additional legal meetings with the counsel through video conferencing in a week, till he is confined to jail. The petition is accordingly allowed,” the high court said in an order passed on July 18 and made available on Thursday.
The court observed prison rules have been framed by the jail authorities concerned after considering all modalities, infrastructure, and the number of inmates there.
Therefore, generally, the courts are slow to interfere in the matters of policy. However, when balancing the policy with the fundamental rights of the jail inmate, the request of the petitioner for two additional legal meetings with his lawyers through video conference, in the given circumstance of the huge number of cases pending against him, cannot be termed “unreasonable”, it said.
The court said it cannot be ignored that similar relief of additional legal meetings was allowed to co-accused and AAP leader Sanjay Singh.
When the ED’s counsel contended that the order with regard to Singh was essentially ex parte, the court said the submission was not tenable since the respondents had appeared in the end while the order was being passed, and even thereafter, it was not challenged by the State.
Kejriwal has already been granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in the money laundering case registered by the ED.
The court said there was no merit in the State’s objection that Kejriwal continues to be in judicial custody in the corruption case lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and nothing prevented him from moving a similar application in that case or other cases pending against him in various states.
“Indisputably, he has some thirty – forty cases against him in various States and continues to be in custody in the CBI case. To confine this fundamental right to a particular case and to insist on an independent application in each case, is not only taking a myopic view but would result in multiplicity of similar relief being asserted in different cases,” the court said.
It added that to ask Kejriwal to move independent applications in each case would lead to delay and may indirectly deny him the right to effective legal help.
Opposing Kejriwal’s petition, Tihar jail authorities had contended there are many prisoners who have 100 cases pending against them and they are allowed only two meetings with their lawyers every week.
The ED had alleged that Kejriwal was using his meetings with lawyers for sending out instructions to the ministers of the Delhi government.
In separate petitions, Kejriwal has challenged his arrest in the corruption case registered by the CBI in the alleged excise policy scam and also sought bail.
The AAP leader was arrested by the CBI on June 26 from Tihar Jail, where he was lodged in judicial custody in a connected money laundering case filed by the ED.
Kejriwal, who was arrested by the ED on March 21, was granted bail by the trial court in the money laundering case on June 20. However, the trial court’s order was stayed by the high court.
The Supreme Court granted him interim bail on July 12 in the money laundering case till a larger bench considers three questions on the aspect of “need and necessity of arrest” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
He is yet to secure bail in the corruption case registered by the CBI in connection with the alleged excise scam.