Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking to set aside or quash the Orders dated 10-04-2024 and 01-07-2024 passed by the Special Judge and seeking direction to Jail Authority for allowing the applicant to have five weekly meetings with his Lawyers and further seeking directions to the Jail Authority for allowing the applicant to have additional two meetings with his Lawyers respectively was dismissed. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., 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 petitioner was arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and was remanded to custody on 22-03-2024. Subsequently, he faced litigation across multiple states including Punjab, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Goa, Assam, and Delhi, necessitating extensive legal consultations. His first application for five weekly meetings with his lawyers was opposed by the respondents and dismissed by the Special Judge on 10-04-2024, without substantial reasoning or proof of misuse of the meetings. During an interim bail period granted by the Supreme Court from 10-05-2024, to 02-06-2024, the petitioner filed a second application for two additional meetings via video conference, which was also dismissed on 01-07-2024, due to the lack of new circumstances.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders dismissing his applications lacked proper consideration, especially since a similar application by co-accused Sanjay Singh was granted. He claimed this demonstrated a precedent that should have been followed, and the denial of similar relief to him was unjustified. The petitioner emphasized that the refusal to grant additional meetings infringed upon his Constitutional right under Article 22(1) to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, which is fundamental to a fair trial. He cited various legal precedents supporting the right to legal representation and a fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution.
Counsel for respondent 2 contended that the petitioner’s applications were rightly dismissed as they lacked necessary details about the cases and were seen as an attempt to seek special treatment. The Special Judge had noted misuse of previous legal meetings, where the petitioner allegedly dictated directions to the Water Minister. According to established rules, inmates are generally allowed limited meetings, and any exception requires prior approval.
The Court reiterated the cornerstone principle of the Constitution of India that an accused has the fundamental right to a fair trial, which includes the right to legal representation as enshrined in Article 22(1). This principle has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, emphasizing equal rights and protection under the law for every citizen, irrespective of their status. The Court highlighted the case of Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1658, reinforcing that no one is above the law and everyone, whether an ordinary citizen or a public figure, has equal privileges under the Constitution.
In this case, the petitioner sought two additional legal meetings per week through video conferencing due to his involvement in over 30 cases across various states. Despite being granted interim bail in one matter, he remained in custody for other cases. The State’s argument that the petitioner’s request had become infructuous since he was released on interim bail in the PMLA matter was dismissed by the court. The Court reasoned that confining the right to legal consultation to individual cases would lead to unnecessary delays and confusion. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s fundamental right to effective legal help should not be hindered by procedural technicalities.
Considering the jail policy and the need to balance it with the petitioner’s fundamental rights, the Court found the request for additional legal meetings reasonable given the number of pending cases. The Court also noted that a co-accused had been granted similar relief. Special situations warrant special remedies, and the Court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed two additional legal meetings with his lawyers through video conferencing per week while he remains in jail, thereby recognizing his fundamental right to a fair trial and effective legal representation.
[Arvind Kejriwal v. Department of Delhi Prisons, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5035, decided on 18-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Rajat Jain & Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State/R-1. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Ms. Abhipriya Rai, Mr. Vivek Gaurav & Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advocates for ED. Mr. Abhijit Shankar, Law Officer, Tihar Jail, New Delhi.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
