The ED asserted to the Delhi High Court Today (April 3rd) that Arvind Kejriwal, cannot use the approaching Lok Sabha elections or his CM status as grounds for special treatment in his money laundering case. The ED counsel analogized by questioning, “Consider a scenario where a terrorist, also a politician, detonates an army vehicle and claims immunity to contest elections. What logic is this?”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) presented its stance before the Delhi High Court Today, asserting that Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, cannot seek special treatment in his money laundering case based on the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections or his position as CM.
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju employed clever wordplay using Kejriwal’s party name, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), to underscore the principle of equality before the law. He argued that regardless of one’s status, anyone found guilty of looting the country should face consequences, rebuffing the notion that being a Chief Minister exempts one from legal accountability.
“Aam aadmi has to go behind bars if he has committed a crime but because you are a Chief Minister you can’t be arrested? You will loot the country but no one can touch you because the elections are coming?”
-the ASG questioned.
Responding to Kejriwal’s assertion of the arrest being politically motivated ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, the ASG dismissed the analogy, drawing a parallel scenario involving a hypothetical terrorist-politician seeking immunity to contest elections after perpetrating a heinous act.
“Take a case of terrorist who is also a politician. He blows up army vehicle and says I want to contest elections so you can’t touch me? What kind of argument is this,”
-the ASG contended.
He emphasized that the veracity of witness statements against Kejriwal would be determined in trial proceedings, emphasizing the court’s role in adjudicating rather than substituting the investigating officer’s judgment. The ASG highlighted evidence suggesting external involvement in the formulation of policies, shifting the focus from Kejriwal’s individual role to his responsibility for party affairs.
“Forget his role, role is not required to be looked at. What is required to be looked at is that he was responsible for the affairs of the company/party,”
-the ASG underscored.
The arguments in the case involving Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest and remand in the Delhi excise policy case took a heated turn as legal representatives from both sides engaged in a rigorous debate before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
Representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Additional Solicitor General (ASG) reiterated the agency’s stance that Kejriwal, as the individual responsible for the affairs of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was implicated in the money laundering offense benefiting the party.
“We have demonstrated that Arvind Kejriwal was responsible for the affairs of the company (AAP) at the time when the offense of money laundering was committed. Tomorrow if we feel that others were also responsible for it, we will make them responsible as well,”
-the ASG asserted.
Responding to Kejriwal’s assertion that the proceeds had not been recovered and the money trail remained untraceable, the ASG countered,
“The money trail is there. We have located the money trail. The money may have been used and that is why it can’t be found.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, vehemently opposed the ASG’s arguments, particularly the comparisons drawn to a terrorist act. Singhvi challenged the validity of such analogies and emphasized the need for fair application of legal principles.
“He came with bizarre examples of a terrorist blowing up an army vehicle. This is nothing but a bizarre example. The second example is a heinous crime. Did any of these heinous crimes which they accuse me of happen after notification of the election? He said terrorist blows up army vehicle and heinous crime. My ladyship may see the court recording to confirm he said this,”
-Singhvi countered.
Singhvi further questioned the ASG’s argument regarding proceeds of the crime, raising concerns about the jurisdiction of the ED in the absence of clear evidence of money laundering.
Regarding Kejriwal’s alleged involvement, Singhvi vehemently denied any evidence linking the Chief Minister to the offense of money laundering, calling such claims preposterous. He questioned the application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the absence of concrete evidence against Kejriwal.
“The submissions were made before single-judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma who was hearing a plea filed by the Delhi CM challenging his arrest and remand in the Delhi excise policy case.”
After a rigorous session lasting over three hours, the Court reserved its verdict, leaving both parties awaiting the final judgment.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Delhi Excise Policy Scam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
