Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 INSC 687

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Arvind Kejriwal Vs....

In the case of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2024 INSC 687), the Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI and his subsequent request for bail. ​ Kejriwal, a prominent political figure, was implicated in a case involving alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy for 2021-2022. ​ The Supreme Court held that the CBI cannot justify the arrest and continued detention of an accused solely on the grounds that the accused is giving evasive replies during the investigation. ​ The Court emphasized that an accused has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to make self-incriminating statements. ​ This ruling underscores the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. ​ It reinforces that the power to arrest must be exercised judiciously and not as a tool for coercion. ​

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Rethinking Scrutiny of Question of Fact under Writ Jurisdiction

Mere existence of a question of fact has long been considered an obstacle to Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution—a stance reinforced through numerous precedents pronounced by the Apex Court and consistently upheld by the High Courts. This reflects a deep-rooted judicial hesitancy to delve into factual questions... Read more »

Sadakat Kotwar Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 Scc Online Sc 1046

The Supreme Court observed that the intention of an accused can be ascertained by the part of the body where the accused chose to assault the victim and the nature of injury inflicted upon the victim by the accused, and that no one can enter the mind of the accused to read the intention of... Read more » Read more »

No State-Specific Domicile, Strikes Down Domicile-Based PG Medical Reservations – SC

In Shobha v. Muthoot Finance, SLP(C) Nos. 2625-2627/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable against Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs). The Court held that NBFCs, being private entities, do not perform public functions, and mere regulatory oversight under a statute does not subject them to... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.