Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi: In a crucial development that could influence future proceedings in the Delhi liquor policy case, the Supreme Court has raised concerns about the “fairness” of the ongoing investigations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court questioned the agencies’ reliance on statements made by former accused persons who have turned approvers or become prosecution witnesses.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan emphasized that federal agencies must ensure fairness in their approach and not depend solely on testimonies from individuals who have incriminated themselves and later turned witnesses. “You have to be fair… a person who incriminates himself has been made a witness? You cannot pick and choose… What is this fairness?” Justice Gavai remarked during the hearing.
The court’s observations were made while hearing the bail plea of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, who was arrested by the ED in March and subsequently by the CBI in connection with the liquor policy case. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, arguing against Ms. Kavitha, cited “independent evidence” provided by former accused Bucchi Babu and Raghav Magunta Reddy, who turned approvers and received pardons in April last year and March this year, respectively.
However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Ms. Kavitha, contested the prosecution’s claims, pointing out that the same statements had been used as evidence in other related cases, including those against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. “You say Kejriwal is kingpin… say Sisodia is kingpin… then say I (K Kavitha) am kingpin! There is no evidence apart from approvers’ tainted statements!” Rohatgi argued.
The Supreme Court intervened, stressing that statements from approvers need to be supported by direct evidence. “What is the material to show she was involved in the crime?” Justice Gavai asked the prosecution.
This observation from the Supreme Court is being viewed as a significant development in the context of the Delhi liquor policy case, where much of the evidence appears to hinge on the testimonies of former accused-turned-approvers.
The role of approvers’ statements had previously been highlighted in bail applications filed by Mr. Kejriwal and Mr. Sisodia before the Supreme Court. Mr. Sisodia was granted bail earlier this month after the court noted that he had been imprisoned for nearly 18 months with no trial in sight, deeming it a “travesty of justice.” Mr. Kejriwal, although granted bail in the ED case, remains in jail pending the CBI case.
Formatting Phone Not a Crime
The Supreme Court also addressed the prosecution’s claim that Ms. Kavitha had deleted incriminating content from her mobile phones by formatting them. The court dismissed this argument, noting that formatting a phone could not be construed as evidence of criminality. “Phones are a private thing… people delete messages (all the time). I have a habit of deleting group messages… this is normal human conduct… anyone in this room will do the same thing,” Justice Viswanathan remarked.
The court asserted that merely formatting a phone does not imply criminal intent unless there is independent data to support such a claim.
Bail Granted to K Kavitha
Shortly after the Supreme Court raised these concerns, Ms. Kavitha was granted bail. The court noted that she had spent several months in jail without a trial and stated that prolonging her imprisonment would violate her fundamental rights. The court also highlighted the legal provisions that allow special consideration for women when applying for bail, referencing Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The prosecution had argued that Ms. Kavitha’s status as an educated woman and former Member of Parliament excluded her from being considered a ‘vulnerable’ person eligible for special treatment. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, criticizing the lower court for its interpretation and affirming that a woman’s education or social status should not be a barrier to bail.
