• Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi's Chief Minister, has been granted bail by India's Supreme Court after six months of detention.
• Kejriwal's arrest was related to alleged irregularities in Delhi's liquor policy, which he and his party, the Aam Aadmi Party, deny.
• The Supreme Court's decision is seen as a victory for liberty and justice, with implications for the country's political dynamics.
• The case has drawn international attention, with the Supreme Court's decision seen as a reaffirmation of the independence of India's judiciary.

In a significant development that has sent ripples across the political landscape of India, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi and a prominent opposition leader. Kejriwal, who heads the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), had been in detention for almost six months in connection with a graft case. The court's decision, announced on Friday, has paved the way for his release and is expected to have far-reaching implications on the political dynamics of the country.

Arvind Kejriwal, a stalwart of Indian politics and a key figure in the opposition, was taken into custody in March by India's financial crime-fighting agency. The arrest was made weeks before the country's national elections, in relation to alleged irregularities in the capital city's liquor policy. Despite being granted bail in that case in July, Kejriwal remained in detention due to his arrest a month previously by the federal police in a graft case related to the same policy.

The allegations, which Kejriwal and his party vehemently deny, have been labeled as politically motivated. The 55-year-old leader and his party have consistently maintained their innocence, asserting that the cases are an attempt to tarnish their reputation and undermine their political standing.

The Supreme Court's Verdict and Its Implications

The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to Kejriwal has been hailed as a victory for liberty and justice. Justice Surya Kant, while ordering Kejriwal's release, stated that the issue related to liberty and prolonged incarceration could not be justified. However, the two-judge bench was split on Kejriwal's appeal challenging his arrest, with Kant holding it lawful while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the timing raised serious questions.

Justice Bhuyan, in his remarks, emphasized the importance of perception in a functional democracy governed by the rule of law. He stated that the federal police must not only be above board but must also be seen to remain so. His comments underscore the need for transparency and fairness in the functioning of law enforcement agencies.

The AAP, in its first reaction following the verdict, said, Truth can be troubled, but not defeated. This statement reflects the party's belief in Kejriwal's innocence and their determination to continue their political struggle. The decision is expected to boost AAP's morale, enabling Kejriwal to campaign in upcoming regional elections.

Political Repercussions and International Attention

The opposition parties have been demanding Kejriwal's release, asserting that his arrest was an attempt by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to deny them a level playing field in the polls. These charges have been denied by Modi and the BJP. On Friday, the BJP stated that the bail granted to Kejriwal did not imply his innocence.

The case has also drawn international attention, with countries including the U.S. urging a fair and impartial trial. The Supreme Court's decision is likely to be viewed as a reaffirmation of the independence of India's judiciary and its commitment to upholding the rule of law.

The case bears a striking resemblance to the historical case of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who was also embroiled in a legal battle during her tenure. Like Kejriwal, Gandhi was also accused of electoral malpractices and had to fight a legal battle to prove her innocence. The case had a significant impact on the political scenario of the country, leading to a split in the Congress party and eventually to the imposition of the Emergency in 1975.