The Supreme Court has granted bail to BRS leader K Kavitha in connection with allegations of corruption and money laundering tied to the Delhi excise policy. The court raised concerns about the fairness of the investigation, particularly the reliance on statements made by accused individuals who later became witnesses (approvers).
Concerns Over Fairness and Evidence
A bench led by Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan asked the investigating agencies whether there was any independent data to support the evidence against Kavitha. The court expressed doubts about the practice of relying solely on statements from individuals who turned witnesses, questioning the objectivity of such evidence.
Justice Gavai remarked, “A person who incriminates himself has been made a witness. You cannot pick and choose any accused. What is this fairness?”
Misapplication of PMLA Section 45
The bench criticised the Delhi High Court for denying Kavitha bail, stating that the court had “misdirected” itself in applying Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This section allows for certain categories of accused, including women, to be granted bail without strict requirements.
The court noted that Kavitha had already been in custody for five months and, with 493 witnesses and 50,000 documents to consider, it would be impossible to conclude the trial soon. The bench emphasised that undertrial custody should not become a form of punishment.
Inconsistencies in the Investigation
Kavitha’s legal team challenged the allegations that she had formatted her phone to erase call records. Justice Viswanathan pointed out that people often delete personal data, and this alone should not imply criminal intent unless supported by other evidence.
The court asked if there was any additional evidence beyond the statements of the approvers to prove Kavitha’s involvement. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kavitha, argued that no other substantial evidence had been provided to implicate his client.
Kavitha’s Response and Political Resilience
After her release from Tihar Jail, Kavitha vowed to fight the charges both legally and politically. She stated, “We will fight it out legally. We will fight it out politically. By sending us to jail illegally, they have only made the BRS and KCR’s team unbreakable.”
Criticism of High Court Ruling
The Supreme Court bench also criticised the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny Kavitha bail, pointing out that the court had failed to consider the special provisions under Section 45 of the PMLA. Despite Kavitha being a woman and falling under the categories outlined in the Act, the High Court did not extend the benefit of these provisions to her.
The bench noted that the High Court had misinterpreted previous Supreme Court judgments, which urged courts to be more sensitive towards vulnerable categories, such as women, even if they hold prominent positions in society.
