During Tuesday's hearing, the Supreme Court directed a crucial question to the Enforcement Directorate regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea against his arrest in the alleged liquor policy scam. The court asked the central agency if it could selectively pick evidence when there are indications of guilt as well as innocence.

"This is an administrative task? You must strike a balance between the two. You cannot exclude one aspect. You are depriving a person of their right to life," remarked Justice Dipankar Datta, who is part of a two-judge bench alongside Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

In a potentially pivotal moment today, the court also questioned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represented the Enforcement Directorate, about why it took the central agency two years to take action against the "political executive," referring to the Chief Minister and his party.

"...issue is that it has taken two years for this. It is not good for any investigating agency to say that it takes two years to unearth... now when will the trial start? From one stage to the other... from initiation of proceedings to arrest..." the court asked the ED.

The court further questioned the ED about why there had been no inquiry into Mr. Kejriwal prior to the issuance of summons and his subsequent arrest during the course of the investigation. "The only issue is why did you not ask and why were you delaying?"

"If I start asking about Arvind Kejriwal at the outset... it would have been called 'malafide'..." Mr Raju responded, adding, "It takes time to understand... we can't put it overnight. Things have to be confirmed."

Earlier, Mr. Raju recounted statements from approvers, i.e., ex-accused-turned-government witnesses, and emphatically stated, "there is not a single statement exonerating" the AAP boss in this case. Mr. Raju's assertive remarks were intended to rebut arguments from Mr. Kejriwal's camp, which claimed that the Chief Minister had not been named in initial witness records.

The AAP leader's camp highlighted that the agency had argued, even as late as March 16, five days before his arrest, that Mr. Kejriwal had not been listed as an accused.

During the previous hearing, the bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta had suggested that it might contemplate granting temporary bail to the Aam Aadmi Party leader to enable him to campaign for the ongoing Lok Sabha election.

Acknowledging the time-consuming nature of these proceedings, the court expressed its willingness to hear arguments from both sides for the grant of bail, particularly considering the upcoming polls for Delhi's seven Lok Sabha seats, all won by the Bharatiya Janata Party in the 2019 election, scheduled for May 25.