Today, as the Supreme Court wrapped up its proceedings on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition contesting his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, it indicated its intent to delve into the matter of interim bail, particularly in light of the ongoing elections.

"We will keep it on Tuesday morning now, and since it is going to take time, we may hear you on the questions of interim bail due to the elections..so please be prepared to answer on that..", the division bench told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju.

Another aspect under our consideration pertains to the official capacity of Mr. Kejriwal's role. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta remarked on whether he should retain the authority to sign official documents, given his position.

During earlier proceedings today, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing Mr. Kejriwal, presented submissions before the court. In response, the court inquired about the scheduled date for the upcoming elections in Delhi.

"Elections in Delhi are on May 26, campaigning over on May 23..elections were announced on March 16th, he is arrested on 21st March..", Singhvi had responded.

Two days ago, the Supreme Court had raised concerns regarding the Enforcement Directorate's handling of the liquor scam case involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Specifically, the court questioned the time lapse between the commencement of the investigation and Mr. Kejriwal's subsequent arrest.

Furthermore, the court had also scrutinized the timing of Mr. Kejriwal's arrest, noting that it coincided closely with the period leading up to the general elections.

On April 29, the Supreme Court commenced the hearing of Delhi Chief Minister's Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to reject his plea contesting his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the liquor policy scam.

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, had told the court that his client's non-cooperation could not be a ground for his arrest. "Can they say that since I did not co-operate, they will arrest me...can they say that? Non-cooperation can never be incriminatory or a ground for arrest..", he submitted.