AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal withdrew his petition in the Delhi High Court challenging ED summons in the excise policy-linked money laundering case. The Court dismissed the plea as withdrawn while keeping all constitutional and legal issues open for future hearing.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday allowed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to withdraw his petition challenging the summons issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged excise policy-linked money laundering case.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for Kejriwal informed the Court that he did not wish to continue with the plea, as the trial court had already acquitted him in criminal cases related to his failure to appear before the ED in response to its summons.
Addressing the bench, Kejriwal’s senior lawyer said,
“Much water has flown.. I will not press the petition. I will take the constitutional pleas at an appropriate stage,”
indicating that the challenge would not be pursued at this point but may be raised later before a suitable forum.
Taking note of the statement, the High Court recorded,
“Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn”.
The bench also clarified that all legal questions raised in the petition would remain open and could be argued in future proceedings if required.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, informed the Court that the agency intends to challenge the trial court’s decision. He stated that the ED will file an appeal against the acquittal order.
Earlier, on January 22, the trial court had acquitted Kejriwal in two separate cases filed against him for not appearing before the ED despite repeated summons in the alleged excise policy scam. The trial court made important observations in its order, noting that the accused was a sitting chief minister at the relevant time and was entitled to constitutional protections.
The trial court observed that the accused was a serving chief minister and
“he too enjoyed his fundamental right of movement”.
It further held that
“the legal challenge to due service of summons is maintainable”
and concluded that the ED failed to prove that Kejriwal had deliberately or intentionally disobeyed the summons.
Kejriwal had approached the High Court after receiving the ninth summons from the ED, which directed him to appear before the agency on March 21, 2024, in connection with its money laundering probe related to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.
On March 20, 2024, the High Court had asked the ED to file its response on the question of whether Kejriwal’s petition was maintainable. A day later, the Court directed the agency to also respond to Kejriwal’s plea seeking protection from arrest. At that stage, the bench had observed that “at this stage” it was not inclined to grant any interim relief. Later that same evening, Kejriwal was arrested by the ED.
Currently, Kejriwal is on interim bail in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court of India has referred important questions regarding the “need and necessity of arrest” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to a larger bench for detailed examination. This issue is expected to have wider implications for arrest powers under the PMLA.
In addition, after being arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on June 26, 2024 in a related corruption case, Kejriwal was granted bail by the Supreme Court on September 13, 2024.
The ED has alleged that certain co-accused persons were in contact with Kejriwal during the formulation of the excise policy, which was later scrapped. According to the agency, the policy resulted in undue benefits to some private parties and led to alleged kickbacks to the Aam Aadmi Party.
In his petition before the High Court, Kejriwal had also challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, especially those relating to arrest, questioning and bail. He raised several key legal questions, including whether a political party can be treated as an entity covered under the anti-money laundering law.
The petition further alleged that the “arbitrary procedure” under PMLA was being used in a manner that created an uneven political environment ahead of the general elections. It claimed that such actions were intended to
“skew the electoral process in the favour of the ruling party at the Centre”.
ALSO READ: Court Summons FSL Director in Arvind Kejriwal Hoarding Case
Stating that the petitioner is a “vocal critic” of the ruling party and a partner of the opposition INDIA bloc, the plea also alleged that the ED, being under the control of the Union government, has been “weaponised”.
With the withdrawal of the petition, the High Court proceedings in this particular matter have come to an end for now. However, with the ED planning to file an appeal and key constitutional questions pending before the Supreme Court, the legal battle surrounding the excise policy case and the scope of powers under the PMLA is far from over.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arvind Kejriwal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
