• Dr Nishant A.Irudayadason
  Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, Jnana-Deepa Institute of Philosophy & Theology, Pune.

Arvind Kejriwal, the former Chief Minister of Delhi and a formidable adversary to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, recently emerged from the legal labyrinth, albeit temporarily, as the Supreme Court granted him provisional bail. His triumphant return was marked by a spirited crowd, their jubilation palpable as they welcomed their leader back into the political arena. Kejriwal’s words echoed through the thronged square, his defiant and hopeful smile. “I’m back,” he declared, a rallying cry that resonated with those who view him as a bulwark against perceived authoritarian tendencies. His pointed accusation against Modi’s administration, alleging the misuse of the justice system to muzzle political dissent, cut through the charged atmosphere. The battle lines were drawn, and the stakes couldn’t be higher: democracy versus autocracy.
The genesis of Kejriwal’s legal entanglement lies in a corruption case that ensnared his government. The Enforcement Directorate, India’s financial watchdog, alleges that bribes exchanged hands while licensing alcohol sales to private companies in the bustling heart of the nation–the capital city of Delhi. Kejriwal, however, vehemently denies any wrongdoing, casting himself as a victim of political machinations. His supporters, a fervent cohort, echo his sentiments, branding the entire affair a “political conspiracy.” But what lies beneath the surface? Is this merely a legal skirmish, or does it conceal deeper motives? The timing of Kejriwal’s arrest–mere weeks before the general elections–raises eyebrows. Some see it as a calculated move by Modi’s government to weaken the opposition, a pre-election manoeuvre aimed at destabilising the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which Kejriwal founded and currently governs in Delhi and Punjab. The AAP, a key player in the opposition coalition, stands poised to challenge Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the electoral arena.
The court’s decision, allowing Kejriwal to campaign in the parliamentary elections, underscores the extraordinary circumstances surrounding his arrest. As the nation braces for the electoral spectacle, the Delhi region–where Kejriwal’s party wields considerable influence–prepares to elect its Members of Parliament on 25 May. The court’s reasoning, articulated by the panel of judges, hinges on the temporal context. “We are in an election period,” they assert, emphasising the gravity of the situation. Kejriwal’s release, albeit conditional, reflects the delicate balance between justice and democratic processes. The stipulations–no public statements about the charges, no interaction with witnesses, and avoidance of Delhi government offices–underscore the court’s cautious approach. Atishi Singh, a minister in Kejriwal’s government, hailed the court’s decision as “a victory for democracy and the Constitution.” Her words resonate with those who perceive Narendra Modi’s government as wielding dictatorial tendencies.
Kejriwal, a seasoned politician who has helmed Delhi’s administration for nearly a decade, now navigates treacherous waters. His recent legal entanglement mirrors a broader concern: the shrinking democratic space in India. The allegations against him, like a shadow, extend beyond the individual to encapsulate the very essence of governance. Kejriwal’s apprehensions resonate with those who perceive a concerted effort to stifle dissent and muzzle political opponents. But he is not alone in this precarious dance. Rahul Gandhi, the torchbearer of the Congress Party–an arch-rival to Modi’s BJP–navigated treacherous waters last year. Found guilty of defamation, he faced temporary removal from his parliamentary seat. The Enforcement Directorate, tasked with investigating financial crimes, has cast its net widely since 2014, when Modi ascended to power. A staggering 90% of those ensnared in its investigative web belong to opposition parties. The optics are stark: a government wielding legal instruments selectively, its gaze fixed on political adversaries.
The delicate equilibrium between justice and politics teeters. The Supreme Court, often the final arbiter, grapples with questions that transcend legalese. Is justice impartial, or does it bend to the prevailing winds of power? Can democracy thrive when the scales of justice tilt toward political expediency? The nation watches as India hurtles toward elections–a collective breath is held. The courtroom battles, the legal chessboard, and the narratives spun by both sides converge, shaping the contours of a nation’s destiny. In this charged atmosphere, Kejriwal’s release on bail becomes more than an individual reprieve; it becomes a symbol–an emblem of democracy’s resilience or vulnerability.