The Delhi High Court rejected Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a liquor case. The court deemed Kejriwal’s arrest valid, dismissing his argument against the ED’s actions.
NEW DELHI: Today (9th April): The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case and the subsequent remand order sending him to ED custody. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, came after a thorough hearing of arguments on April 3.
“We hold that judges are bound by law not politics. Judgments are given on legal principles not political considerations. Court cannot go into the realm of politics.”
: Delhi HC
READ ALSO: ED Seeks Access to Arvind Kejriwal’s iPhone Amidst Investigation
Court holds that the ED was able to place enough evidence in shape of hawala transaction and statement of Approvers and statement of the Candidate of the party, which shows the arrest was not in contravention of Pankaj Bansal and other conventions. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed.
Regarding the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest before the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the Court stated,
“The Court is of the opinion that the accused has been arrested and his arrest and remand have to be examined as per law and not as per the timing of elections… Mr. Kejriwal must have been aware of the Lok Sabha dates, he would have known when the elections were to be held…”
After reviewing the material submitted by the ED, the Court expressed,
“The material collected by ED reveals that Mr. Arvind Kejriwal conspired and was actively involved in the use and concealment of proceeds of crime. The ED case also reveals that he was involved in his personal capacity as well as the convenor of AAP.”
Rejecting the argument that the Chief Minister could have been questioned by the ED via video conference, Justice Sharma remarked,
“It is not for the accused to decide how the investigation is to be done. It cannot be as per the convenience of the accused. There cannot be any specific privilege for anyone, including the Chief Minister.”
The arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the ED on March 21, related to a money laundering case linked to the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021, led to a legal challenge. Following his arrest, Kejriwal was remanded to ED custody till March 28 by Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court. He subsequently challenged both his arrest and the remand order in the Delhi High Court.
Kejriwal alleged that the Central Government was misusing the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – the basis of his arrest – to create an unfair advantage in the lead-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He accused the government of favoring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) by controlling the ED through the Ministry of Finance.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, argued against Kejriwal’s plea.
“Aam aadmi (common man) 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?”
In response to Kejriwal’s argument that the arrest was politically motivated in view of the upcoming elections, the ASG said,
“Take a case of a terrorist who is also a politician. He blows up an Army vehicle and says I want to contest elections so you can’t touch me? What kind of argument is this?”
READ ALSO: BREAKING|| Arvind Kejriwal Scam | Delhi Court Summons Chief Minister
The ASG’s argument if a common person would face legal consequences for a crime, the same standards should apply to public figures like Kejriwal. He also countered Kejriwal’s claims of political motivation, stating that the ED’s actions were based on evidence and legal procedures.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, strongly contested the ASG’s arguments. They questioned the validity of the charges against Kejriwal under the PMLA and argued against the ED’s jurisdiction in the absence of clear proceeds of crime.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, strongly opposed the arguments put forth by the ASG, particularly the comparisons made by the ASG between Kejriwal’s case and a terrorist blowing up a vehicle.
Singhvi expressed his disagreement, stating,
“The ASG presented bizarre examples of a terrorist act…Did any of these serious crimes they accuse me of occur after the election notification?”
He further elaborated,
“My argument is if a Chief Minister were to blow up an Army vehicle, that would warrant arrest. But is that a fair comparison to the current case?”
Regarding the ASG’s stance on proceeds of crime, Singhvi commented, “Let’s address the issue of proceeds of crime. The ASG suggests that if a body is not found, the murder case continues…What constitutes an independent offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)? For instance, if a bribe giver is caught in the act simultaneously with the receiver, it falls under the PC Act or Income Tax Act, not under money laundering. Can the ED claim jurisdiction in such a scenario where there are no proceeds of crime?”
Addressing the relevance of Kejriwal’s role in the alleged offenses, Singhvi argued,
“There is no evidence implicating Kejriwal in money laundering. It’s absurd to suggest that the Chief Minister would engage in hawala transactions. How does mere awareness of a conspiracy become grounds for a PMLA offense? Being aware of a conspiracy does not equate to being accused under PMLA. This interpretation is completely twisting the PMLA provisions.”
The High Court’s dismissal of Kejriwal’s plea marks a significant legal development in this ongoing case. The ruling reflects the judiciary’s stance on matters of alleged financial misconduct and the accountability of public officials, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Delhi Excise Policy Scam
