The central issue revolves around Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI while he was already in judicial custody in a separate case managed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Delhi Chief Minister argues that this arrest was not only unwarranted but also a misuse of judicial processes. His legal team asserts that the timing and nature of the arrest were intended to undermine his role as Chief Minister and to influence the political climate ahead of upcoming elections.
During the court proceedings, the Supreme Court expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the CBI’s actions. The court questioned the necessity and legality of arresting Kejriwal while he was already in custody on another matter. This move has raised questions about the procedural propriety of the CBI's conduct and the broader implications for judicial independence and the rule of law.
The scrapped liquor policy, which is at the heart of the case, was intended to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol in Delhi. However, the policy faced substantial criticism and legal challenges, leading to its eventual withdrawal. Critics have argued that the policy was marred by corruption and procedural flaws, which the central probe agencies are now investigating.
Kejriwal’s defense has highlighted that the CBI's actions may be politically motivated. They contend that the arrest could be viewed as a deliberate attempt to hinder Kejriwal's political activities and governance. They argue that the arrest occurred despite the absence of any new evidence or developments in the case against Kejriwal.
The Supreme Court's involvement has heightened scrutiny of the CBI’s practices and its approach to handling politically sensitive cases. The apex court’s decision could have significant ramifications for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly those involving high-profile political figures.