 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has raised questions about the extensive time allotted for hearing arguments in the bail plea of Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi. The court's remarks came during a hearing where Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, was presenting detailed arguments regarding the alleged illegality of the arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, while acknowledging that they would hear both sides, expressed their surprise at the length of the proceedings. The court questioned whether such extensive hearings are common in routine bail pleas, remarking, "Both sides we will hear. But we are wondering how long we should hear in a bail matter. Do ordinary mortals get this much time?"
The court's query highlights a potential concern regarding the allocation of judicial resources and the need for efficient handling of cases. While the court has expressed its willingness to hear both sides, the comment raises questions about the balance between ensuring a fair trial and managing court time effectively. It is crucial to note that the court's remarks do not necessarily indicate any bias or pre-judgment of the case; rather, they reflect a pragmatic consideration of judicial efficiency.
Source: Do ordinary mortals get this much time? Supreme Court on arguments in Arvind Kejriwal bail plea