Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court Grants Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Permission to Meet Family and Legal Counsel for 30 Minutes, Allows Medically-Prescribed Diet During ED Custody in Liquor Policy Case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court granted Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal certain privileges during his six-day Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody in connection with the liquor policy case. Kejriwal, who made history as the first sitting Chief Minister in independent India to face arrest on Thursday, has been allowed to meet his family members, receive medical treatment, and adhere to a special diet as per his doctor’s recommendation.
According to the court’s ruling, Kejriwal will be permitted to spend half an hour with his wife Sunita and personal secretary Bibhav Kumar between 6 pm and 7 pm. Additionally, he can meet his legal representatives, Mohammad Irshad and Vivek Jain, during this designated time slot.
Highlighting health concerns, Kejriwal’s separate plea citing hyperglycemia and other medical issues was also acknowledged by the court. Consequently, the Chief Minister has been granted permission to follow a medically-prescribed diet during his custody. If the ED fails to provide the specified diet, Kejriwal is entitled to consume home-cooked food, as per the court’s decision.
Kejriwal is scheduled to remain in ED custody until March 28, with a court appearance set for 2 pm on that day. The AAP supremo’s appearance in the trial court followed his withdrawal of a plea against his ED arrest, as confirmed by legal sources.
During the court proceedings, the probe agency alleged that Kejriwal received substantial kickbacks from the ‘South group’ for devising and executing the now-defunct Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The ED asserted that funds amounting to Rs 45 crore, purportedly labeled as ‘kickback’, were channeled through four hawala routes during the 2022 Goa assembly elections.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, emphasized the necessity for the probe agency to justify the Chief Minister’s arrest. Singhvi argued that while the power of arrest exists, demonstrating its necessity is a separate matter altogether.
The arrest of the 55-year-old leader sparked vehement reactions from the AAP, with accusations leveled against the BJP-led government of orchestrating a “political conspiracy” ahead of the upcoming Lok Sabha polls. Despite the setback, both Kejriwal and the party have affirmed his commitment to continue serving as Chief Minister and to “govern from jail if necessary.”
Yesterday in Rouse Avenue court
Opposing his remand sought by the ED, Kejriwal questioned why the agency waited until the eve of Lok Sabha elections to arrest him if they possessed evidence against him all along.
“They say they had all the material against me… then why did you wait till after the model code came into force? Were you waiting for this? The right to participate in the election is a politician’s right,”
-Kejriwal’s counsel, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhuri, conveyed to Special Judge (PC) Act Kaveri Baweja of Rouse Avenue court.
Chaudhuri further insisted that the ED should disclose its true affiliations, stating,
“They should remove their mask and show us who they exactly represent.”
During the hearing of the ED’s plea seeking Kejriwal’s custody for ten days, Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED on March 21 from his residence was under scrutiny.
The arrest followed the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant the AAP national convenor any protection from coercive action, with a Division Bench asserting that no interim orders were necessary at that stage.
Although Kejriwal initially sought relief from the Supreme Court to prevent his arrest, he later withdrew that plea.
In pursuit of custody for Kejriwal, the ED portrayed him as a key conspirator directly involved in formulating the liquor policy and managing proceeds of crime, particularly in the Goa election campaign.
“As CM, Arvind Kejriwal was the key conspirator of the conspiracy. He was directly involved in the formulation of the policy… he was involved in handling the proceeds of crime as well in the Goa election campaign. Kejriwal is the head of the party,”
-Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju told the Court on behalf of the ED.
The ASG further asserted that Kejriwal deliberately ignored the summons issued by the ED and declined to cooperate with the investigation.
“He has willfully disobeyed the summons. The conduct of disobeying the summons… At the times of search, he did not provide correct facts. He was non-cooperative in the investigation. We want to interrogate him and gather information,”
-Raju stated.
Moreover, he argued that the kickbacks received through the liquor policy were utilized by AAP to finance the Goa assembly elections.
“There is concrete evidence to show there is a scam and fraud. The excise policy was changed to fund Goa elections for AAP,”
-the ASG highlighted.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also representing Kejriwal, opposed the ED’s request for remand, emphasizing the pattern observed in witness statements.
“There is a new pattern now. You have a witness, he does not name Kejriwal in statement one or statement two. You then arrest him and oppose his bail vehemently. He then turns approver. And one fine day he gives a brilliant statement,”
-Singhvi remarked.
He pointed out that there was no direct evidence against Kejriwal apart from the statements of witnesses.
“There is no direct evidence except these statements saying I met Mr. Kejriwal etc. If people are arrested and pardoned then they will definitely name anyone,”
-Singhvi contended.
Additionally, he underscored that this was the first and only instance where a sitting chief minister had been arrested in India.
“Four senior leaders of his part are arrested. This means before even the first vote is cast, the results are there. Democracy is the basic structure of the constitution. You are creating a non-level playing field. This is not a rhetorical statement,”
-he argued.
After Kejriwal was arrested on Thursday, he was brought before the Court today by the ED which sought his custody for ten days.
ASG Raju told the Court that the agency has complied with the requirements under Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“His relatives have been informed and copy of the remand application has been given to them. Grounds of arrest also he has received. We have compiled with Sec 19 (1) PMLA,” the ASG said.
Raju further said that the liquor policy was made in a manner that enabled bribery.
“We talk about the background of the Excise Policy. The expert committee was constituted but it was a sham committee. The policy was made in such a manner that it would enable the taking of bribes and recoupment of people who gave the bribes,” he said.
He further claimed that Kejriwal demanded kickbacks from the ‘South Group in exchange for favours.
“This is corroborated by the statements,” he stated.
In exchange for kickbacks, the South Group got control of liquor business in Delhi, ASG further said.
It was also argued that Kejriwal was constantly in touch with Deputy CM Manish Sisodia.
“Vijay Nair (another accused) was staying in a house near Mr Kejriwal. He was staying in the house given to Mr Kailash Gahlot, a minister of the delhi govt. He acted as the middle man between South Group and AAP,” Raju contended.
He also said the proceeds of the crime were used for Goa elections by AAP.
“Proceeds of crime are not only the Rs 100 crore bribe received but also the profits made by the bribe payers. It was over Rs 600 crore. Rs 45 Crore was transferred to Goa through hawala,” it was submitted.
The money trail is corroborated not only statements of witnesses but also by call data records (CDRS), he said.
“We have also examined the money trail backwards. The money to Goa came through 4 routes. The allegations are also corroborated by one of the AAP candidates in Goa. This person was also paid in cash. Where did they get the cash? it was from these kickbacks,” the ASG said.
Though AAP was the beneficiary of these, Kejriwal is vicariously liable for the same, it was argued.
“Apart from from personal liability, he (Kejriwal) is also liable to be punished for vicarious liability. He is also responsible for the affairs of the AAP. He is responsible for the conduct of the party. he is the national convenor and responsible for the party at national level,” ASG contended.
Senior Advocate Singhvi said that arrest under PMLA is more stringent since bail is also stringent.
“The test for arrest is more stringent because the grounds for bail are more stringent. There has to be a causal link between material in my possession and reason to believe. The first thing to be shown is necessity for arrest. The power of arrest is not equal to the need of arrest. Just because you have the power to arrest does not mean you will arrest. The fact that you Have the power does not mean you will exercise it,” Singhvi submitted.
Thus, the ED has to prove that it was necessary to arrest Kejriwal.
“What is the necessity to arrest this man in March 2024? The entire remand application is the copy paste of grounds of arrest. You say you need to further trace the money trail (but) can’t be a ground of arrest. It can be grounds for a questionnaire or video conference,” he said.
On the money trail, Singhvi said that there has to be cogent proof of involvement.
“Money can’t keep changing hands indefinitely and then you arrest me… in your grounds of arrest, there is no reason to arrest me. You have to show how I am involved,” Singhvi stated.
He further said that a remanding court is not an automatic rubber stamp.
“80% of the people have not named Arvind Kejriwal in their statements. The reason of arrest of one of the witnesses is non cooperation and he was arrested a day after he did not name Kejriwal,” it was argued.
Remand should not be done in a routine manner, he emphasised.
“Please do not look at the remand as a routine.. it requires application of significant judicial mind. There are larger issues of democracy involved. Please keep that in mind,” he said in conclusion.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari also made submissions on behalf of Kejriwal.
He said that the ED indulged in subterfuge by initially saying that Kejriwal was not being summoned as an accused.
“They tell me on January 12 that i am being called in my personal capacity and not as the CM. They tell me I am not an accused. It is loud and clear,” Chaudhari said.
He stressed that the cooperation or non-cooperation is the Court to examine and the ED cannot act as the judge, jury and executioner.
“My cooperation is for the court to examine but here the ED is acting as judge jury and executioner,” Chaudhauri underlined.
To buttress this argument he said that the remand application contradicted the ED’s summons.
“The first line in remand is that as CM he was the kingpin… On January 12 they had said I am being called not as CM. The opening lines of remand application destroy their subterfuge and misrepresentation that I was not being called as AAP chief and CM,” Chaudhari contended.
Chaudhari also questioned the timing of the arrest right before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
“They say they had all the material against me.. then why did you wait till after the model code came into force? Were you waiting for this? The right to participate in election is a politician’s right,” he contended.
He also questioned the reliance place by ED on Companies Act.
“They referred to Companies Act. A political party is not a company… they say forget the High Court I will decide that you AAP are a company and I will arrest the CM in his personal capacity or as CM or whatever,” Chaudhuri stated.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal finds himself at the heart of a legal storm surrounding the contentious Delhi excise policy case. As the chief of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Kejriwal has initiated an appeal to the Supreme Court following an adverse decision from the Delhi High Court today, which denied him protection from the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) actions. This legal challenge underscores a significant confrontation between state authorities and national law enforcement agencies, with broader implications for political and judicial proceedings in India.
The crux of the matter emerged after the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justices Suresh Kait and Manoj Jain, declined to offer Kejriwal protection from “coercive action” by the ED. The refusal has heightened tensions, particularly as the ED asserts pressure, evidenced by their visit to Kejriwal’s residence armed with a search warrant. This development marks a pivotal moment in the excise policy case, which has seen prominent AAP leaders, including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, placed in judicial custody.
Kejriwal’s plea for an urgent listing and hearing in the Supreme Court signifies his legal team’s strategic response to the High Court’s stance. The case is set against the backdrop of allegations tied to corruption and money laundering in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22—a policy that has since been withdrawn.
During the High Court proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju underscored the gravity of the situation with his remark,
“It is already over. Time is over. He is not attending.”
Raju’s statement reflects the judiciary’s frustration with Kejriwal’s non-compliance, suggesting that those “who flout the law” should not expect leniency.
In defense, Kejriwal’s attorney, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, articulated concerns over the timing and nature of the legal challenges faced by the Chief Minister. Singhvi argued that the imminent threat of arrest and the perceived attempts to destabilize AAP’s position ahead of general elections represent a concerted effort to undermine democratic fairness. He stated,
“There was no necessity to apprehend him after several charge sheets have already been filed before the trial court.”
The legal battle extends beyond the individual predicaments of Kejriwal and his party members; it encompasses broader themes of governance, accountability, and the intersection of law and politics. The ED’s allegations suggest a direct connection between Kejriwal and the formulation of the controversial excise policy, adding layers of complexity to an already convoluted case.
As this legal drama unfolds, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court, awaiting its decision on whether to grant Kejriwal the protection he seeks. The outcome of this legal entanglement could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the individuals involved but also for the principles of justice, transparency, and political integrity in India. With the general elections on the horizon, the stakes could not be higher for Kejriwal, the AAP, and the Indian democratic process at large.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal & AAP
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
