The Enforcement Directorate (ED) contested Arvind Kejriwal’s plea in the Supreme Court regarding the destruction of 173 phones. Kejriwal, leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), had filed a plea challenging his arrest by the ED. The agency, in response, has challenged Kejriwal’s plea, emphasizing the necessity of his arrest and highlighting his alleged non-cooperation in the investigation.
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, April 24th, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court, citing the conduct of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal as justification for his arrest. The ED alleges that Kejriwal’s behavior during the investigation led the agency to believe that he was involved in money laundering. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in response, has accused the ED of spreading falsehoods.
READ ALSO: ED Seeks Access to Arvind Kejriwal’s iPhone Amidst Investigation
The Enforcement Directorate, in its affidavit responding to Kejriwal’s petition contesting his arrest, highlighted that the AAP leader had repeatedly evaded interrogation by failing to appear before the investigating officer despite nine summonses. In reaction, AAP accused the ED of being deceitful, labeling it “a machine for telling lies.”
The ED stated in its affidavit,
“The accused, by his conduct, has himself contributed and aided the investigating officer regarding the existence of the necessity to arrest, apart from the material in possession of the IO, to form the satisfaction that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering.”
The ED dismisses Kejriwal’s petition as lacking merit and argues that it is an appeal against the rejection of a writ petition challenging his arrest during the ongoing investigation. The agency emphasizes that Kejriwal’s arrest was not motivated by any malicious or extraneous reasons and denies allegations of wrongdoing. The ED asserts that arrest is a legitimate part of the investigation process, falling within the exclusive purview of the investigating agency.
In the affidavit, the probe agency claimed that the Chief Minister was arrested following a “large-scale” tampering of evidence, including destruction of around 170 mobile phones during the period of the ‘scam’ and when the irregularities came out in public.
READ ALSO: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Produced Before Special Court Today
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, following the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant him protection from coercive action by the agency. Currently, he is in judicial custody at Tihar jail. The Supreme Court sought a response from the ED on April 15 regarding Kejriwal’s plea to challenge his arrest in a money-laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam.
“So, based on this specific aspect, the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed outright. Another point raised is that the evidence held by the investigating agency, which led to the decision to arrest the accused individual, has been reviewed and approved by three separate judicial bodies at different hierarchical levels. This judicial validation denies the petitioner’s plea for relief concerning the same evidence.”
The ED’s affidavit further details Kejriwal’s non-cooperative behavior during the investigation. The agency claims that he evaded questions and displayed a disregard for the law, leading the investigating officer to conclude that custodial interrogation was necessary. The ED maintains that there is sufficient material to believe that Kejriwal has committed offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
“In relation to this matter, it is asserted that the petitioner’s arrest was conducted in good faith and not for any malicious or unrelated motives. Any claim of malice regarding the arrest is unequivocally refuted. Concerning the allegation of malice, it is emphasized that the petitioner’s arguments are unfounded and lacking specificity, characterized by vagueness and generality.”
“In this scenario, the investigating officer deemed it justifiable to conclude that custodial interrogation would yield a more insightful questioning of the accused. Additionally, the necessity for arrest stemmed not only from the aforementioned conduct of the accused but also from the existence of adequate evidence within the possession of the investigating officer, duly recorded in the case file, supporting the belief that the accused had committed an offense punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).”
READ ALSO: [ BREAKING] Delhi Court Denies Arvind Kejriwal Additional Time for Lawyer Consultation
“This behavior also created a scenario where the accused’s non-cooperation and disregard for numerous summonses made it impossible to confront him with the evidence held by the investigating officer. The agency emphasized its willingness to disclose the evidence that led to the decision to arrest him.
In response to the ED’s affidavit, AAP criticized,
“The ED has transformed into nothing more than a fabrication machine for spreading falsehoods. Every instance sees the ED fabricating new lies, serving the interests of their masters, the BJP.”
The AAP has strongly criticized the ED’s affidavit, accusing the agency of spreading lies and acting on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The high court had previously upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, stating that it was justified due to his repeated failure to comply with summonses and cooperate with the investigation. The case revolves around allegations of corruption and money laundering related to the formulation and execution of the Delhi government’s now-abolished excise policy for 2021–22.
