The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its decision on a plea submitted by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently in judicial custody related to the alleged liquor policy scam. The plea requests permission for two additional virtual meetings with his lawyers.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna indicated that the court's decision would be delivered privately.

Special counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), countered the plea, arguing that it was unnecessary since Kejriwal had already been granted interim bail by the Supreme Court.

“As on date, Supreme Court has granted him interim bail. Whether this application survives or not has to be considered. Can an order be passed in this application which was moved when the petitioner was in judicial custody in the PMLA case which is no longer the position today? The application is infructuous due to subsequent events,” he said.

Hossain further argued that since ordinary citizens held in jail are permitted two legal meetings per week, there is no justification for treating Kejriwal differently in this regard.

He also contended that Kejriwal had not demonstrated any facts to justify why the two legal meetings per week, which are already permitted, would be insufficient.

Additionally, he asserted that Kejriwal had misused his legal consultations to convey messages through his lawyer to Delhi Ministers for administrative purposes, and this had been documented in a judicial order issued by the trial court.

The counsel representing the Tihar jail authorities also objected to the plea, citing Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, which specifically allows only two legal meetings per week. They emphasized that Kejriwal has already been granted this allowance, and there is no basis for granting him further concessions beyond what is permitted by the rules.

He pointed out that Kejriwal initially requested two additional physical meetings per week before the trial court but subsequently modified his request to virtual meetings before the High Court. The counsel emphasized that changing the mode of request does not alter the underlying Rule 585 governing the number of permissible legal meetings.

Additionally, he argued that the reasons presented by Kejriwal to justify the need for two additional legal meetings were not substantiated or justified under the circumstances.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing Kejriwal, argued that the request for two additional virtual meetings was made due to special circumstances. He emphasized that despite being granted release in the money laundering case, Kejriwal remains in judicial custody in the CBI case. Therefore, Gupta contended that the application cannot be considered moot or irrelevant.

He also clarified that the messages purportedly sent by Kejriwal through his counsel occurred during his time in police custody, not while he was in judicial custody.

Following the arguments from both sides, the court decided to defer its decision on the matter.

Kejriwal has stated that he currently has 35 pending cases and therefore seeks two additional virtual meetings with his lawyers to address his legal needs.