Image Credits-Supreme Court Observer
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notices to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in response to a bail plea filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha. The plea pertains to her alleged involvement in the controversial Delhi excise policy case, which has drawn significant attention due to its political and financial counteraccusations.
K Kavitha, the daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao, approached the Supreme Court after a lower court denied her bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. The case, which involves alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of Delhi’s excise policy, has led to multiple high-profile apprehensions and investigations by both the CBI and the ED.
In her petition, Kavitha argued that the charges against her were baseless and politically motivated, intended to blemish her reputation and undermine her political career. She also contended that she had cooperated fully with the investigation and that there was no justification for her continued detention.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, has directed the CBI and ED to respond to Kavitha’s plea, seeking their explanations for opposing her bail. The court’s notice is the first step in the judicial process, and a detailed hearing is expected to take place in the coming weeks.
The excise policy case has become a focal point in Indian politics, with the opposition accusing the ruling party of using investigative agencies to target political rivals. The case centers around allegations of corruption and favoritism in the allocation of liquor licenses, leading to significant financial losses for the Delhi government.
K Kavitha’s involvement in the case has added a new dimension to the ongoing investigations, given her prominence in Telangana politics and her close association with the BRS leadership. The Supreme Court’s decision on her bail plea will be closely watched, as it could have far-reaching consequences for both the legal proceedings and the political landscape.