Today (9th April), Delhi High Court upholds Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest, citing five crucial reasons. The court highlights his active involvement in using proceeds of crime, including for political purposes. It dismisses doubts on approvers’ statements and rejects claims of political revenge or biased timing. The ruling highlights legal scrutiny over personal and political actions.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court’s decision on Tuesday indicated that the evidence gathered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) suggests active participation by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in concealing proceeds of crime related to the money laundering case linked to the Delhi Excise Policy. The high court further noted that the evidence submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) indicates that Kejriwal obtained gains from the criminal activity.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dismissing Kejriwal’s appeal against his ED arrest, thoroughly addressed several arguments.
Here are five justifications provided by the judge for sustaining the detention of the Delhi CM.
1. Involvement in Proceeds of Crime Utilization:
“The evidence collected by the ED demonstrates Mr. Arvind Kejriwal’s active participation and conspiracy in utilizing and concealing proceeds of crime. The ED investigation also indicates his involvement both in a personal capacity and as the convenor of AAP.“
The court also noted that there was proof of using the money from criminal activities for political campaigns during the 2022 Goa legislative assembly elections.
2. Statements of Approvers:
Kejriwal raised doubts about the reliability of statements made by accused turned approvers, which he argued the primary evidence presented by the ED against him.
Addressing this argument comprehensively, the Court emphasized that the law concerning approvers in prosecutions existed for over a century and is not a recent development.
“To question the manner in which an approver’s statement is recorded would amount to questioning the integrity of the Court and its judge.”
The Court also remarked that it cannot be claimed that the law enacted specifically to implicate Kejriwal.
3.Connection with Electoral Bonds
The Court also addressed the accusation that two approvers, who provided statements against Kejriwal, have affiliations with the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP).
Of the three statements linking Kejriwal to alleged kickbacks, from businessman Sarath Chandra Reddy and his father Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, the Lok Sabha candidate for the Telugu Desam Party,
a partner of the BJP.
Kejriwal’s legal team questioned the credibility of Reddy’s statement due to his company Aurobindo Pharma‘s significant contributions to the BJP through electoral bonds.
“In the opinion of this Court, matters such as who receives election tickets or who purchases electoral bonds and for what purposes are not within the purview of this court. The court’s role is to apply the law based on the evidence presented.”
4. Timing of Arrest by ED
The Court dismissed Kejriwal’s argument regarding the timing of his arrest just before the Lok Sabha elections.
“This Court believes that the arrest of the accused and subsequent legal proceedings must be evaluated based on legal grounds and not influenced by electoral timelines.“
5. Irrelevance of Political Vendetta Allegations
Regarding claims that Kejriwal’s arrest was politically motivated by the Central government, the Court stated,
“Political motivations are not relevant in court proceedings. The Court must ensure that it remains impartial and unaffected by external influences.”
The judge also stated that the Court’s focus on constitutional morality rather than political morality.
The court also emphasized,
“Political considerations have no place in a court of law, highlighting that this is a case between Arvind Kejriwal and the ED, not between him and the Centre.”