Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Today informed a sessions court Today that the Enforcement Directorate’s demand for his personal appearance before a Magistrate court regarding the Delhi Excise Policy scam was merely for publicity purposes.
NEW DELHI: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, represented by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), argued Today (March 14th) against the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) request for his personal appearance regarding the Delhi Excise Policy scandal. His legal counsel, Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, contended that Kejriwal’s presence would be unnecessary and asserted that the ED’s insistence was merely a bid for public attention.
Gupta posed to the court,
“I am only saying I be exempted. What do they gain by making me come here? Is it only for the publicity,”
-challenging the motive behind the summons.
This stance was met with a sharp response from Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, who denied the claims of seeking publicity:
“Stop playing to the gallery. we are not doing anything for publicity,”
–he countered.
Also Read- BREAKING | Arvind Kejriwal Moves Sessions Court Against Summons (lawchakra.in)
The case in question was being reviewed by Special Judge (PC) Act Rakesh Syal, following Kejriwal’s legal challenge against summons issued by a Magistrate Court. The Magistrate Court, presided by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Divya Malhotra, had previously summoned Kejriwal on two different occasions in relation to complaint cases filed by the ED, with dates set for February 7 and March 7, respectively, and both matters scheduled for a review on March 16.
The controversy stems from Kejriwal’s alleged non-compliance with the ED’s summonses in the excise policy investigation, prompting the ED to lodge complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Notably, on February 17, Kejriwal participated in proceedings via virtual conference and committed to appearing in person on March 16. However, he filed pleas contesting the ACMM’s orders just two days before the scheduled court appearance.
In court, Gupta reiterated his request for Kejriwal’s exemption from personal appearance, emphasizing,
“I am saying only exempt me from appearing. This is a summoning trial case maximum punishment is one month or fine or both,”
and raised questions about the legitimacy of the complaint filed by the investigating officer, arguing that it was done in a personal capacity, not by the ED. He further contested the identity of the officer filing the complaint, stating,
“Only two persons can file the complaint case. Only the investigating officer or his superior, not any superior officer. So this complaint is barred by Section 195,”
-to underscore procedural discrepancies.
ASG Raju rebutted, highlighting Kejriwal’s prior commitment to appear, a detail he claimed was omitted from the current proceedings:
“Kindly look at February 17 order. They did not annex it. It is being produced now. Look at this order. He (Kejriwal) appeared through VC and gave an oral assurance that he will appear in person on March 16. This was a personal appearance through VC. He said he will appear on March 16 at 10 AM. Now a month later he comes and asks for exemption. He has suppressed this order. This is dishonest conduct on the face of it. Therefore, he is not entitled to interim relief,”
-Raju pointed out.
Raju also addressed the issue regarding the different ED officers involved, clarifying,
“Kindly look at Section 195. It uses the phrase ‘public servant concerned’, not the one who issued summons. They (the person who issues summons to Kejriwal and the one who filed the complaint case in court) are simultaneous IOs,”
and argued for a pragmatic approach to legal proceedings:
“If there is an Investigating Officer today and he dies tomorrow, does that mean no complaint case can be filed? Suppose one public servant retires or goes on holiday. What then,”
-thereby questioning the practicality of the defense’s arguments.
Further, he accused the defense of procrastinating and applying undue pressure on the court by waiting until the last moment to seek a stay:
“Today on a hyper technical ground, stay on proceedings is being asked at the last moment. The entire modus operandi was to move this court at the last moment, put pressure on court,”
-Raju asserted.
In response to the day’s proceedings, Gupta amended his stance, stating he would no longer seek exemption from Kejriwal’s personal appearance but would instead focus on requesting a stay on the proceedings. The case continues to attract attention, with senior AAP leaders such as Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh already detained in connection with the scandal, as the ED investigates alleged financial misconduct linked to the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, initially triggered by a complaint from Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena. The allegations suggest that a conspiracy facilitated by AAP leaders led to financial kickbacks and monopolistic practices in the liquor industry, orchestrated through dubious policy loopholes.
Also Read- Arvind Kejriwal Offers Virtual Cooperation For ED Summons; Probe Agency Reacts (lawchakra.in)
