[Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest] “Delhi CM trying to ‘Politically Sensationalize’ the case before this Hon’ble Court”: CBI Says in Supreme Court

The CBI Submitted a detailed affidavit in the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug 22) night in response to Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest,accused Kejriwal of attempting to politicise the case, arguing that he is trying to “politically sensationalise the case before this Hon’ble Court, despite repeated orders passed by various courts being prima facie satisfied of the commission of the offences”.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has provided a detailed justification for the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The CBI has accused the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief of playing a “pivotal role” in the creation and execution of the controversial policy, which has been at the center of the investigation.

In the agency’s view, Kejriwal’s arrest was critical for the “just conclusion” of the investigation. The CBI emphasized the necessity of this action, particularly in light of Kejriwal’s alleged lack of cooperation and the substantial evidence that reportedly links him to the case. According to the CBI, Kejriwal’s involvement was not only illegal but also a key element of a broader conspiracy involving significant financial irregularities and the misuse of public office.

In a detailed affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on Thursday night, the CBI argued that Kejriwal’s actions were designed to politicize the case. The agency contended that-

“he (kejriwal) is attempting to politically sensationalise the case before this Hon’ble Court, despite repeated orders passed by various courts being prima facie satisfied of the commission of the offences.”

The CBI asserted that the arrest of Kejriwal was conducted lawfully, with all due procedures followed at every step. The agency pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already dismissed Kejriwal’s writ petition, stating that

“it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner (Kejriwal) was without any justifiable reasons or was illegal.”

Today, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant will hear Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the CBI.

Earlier, on August 14, the Supreme Court had denied Kejriwal immediate interim bail, even as it sought a response from the CBI.

The Delhi High Court, on August 5, had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest and remand by a trial court, concluding that his detention was neither illegal nor without justifiable grounds, as the CBI had presented “evidently enough evidence” to justify his arrest and remand.

Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court on August 12, shortly after the top court granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in a related case being investigated by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

In his petition, Kejriwal leaned heavily on the Sisodia verdict, wherein the Supreme Court had ruled that the former Deputy Chief Minister’s prolonged incarceration of 17 months, along with the lack of any imminent conclusion to his trial, infringed on his fundamental right to liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Kejriwal’s petition argued that the same grounds that justified Sisodia’s release should apply to him as well.

The crux of the CBI’s argument in its affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court centers on Kejriwal’s alleged involvement in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi excise policy 2021-22. This policy, which was later scrapped due to allegations of irregularities and corruption, led to a probe ordered by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor. Although Kejriwal did not hold an official ministerial portfolio, the CBI asserted that

“all critical decisions in the formulation of the new excise policy were taken at the behest of the petitioner, in connivance with the then Deputy Chief Minister and Minister of Excise, Manish Sisodia.”

The CBI further claimed that Kejriwal’s influence extended beyond the Delhi government, suggesting that his directives had a significant impact on decisions made across the AAP’s national operations. The agency accused Kejriwal of being central to the policy’s privatisation strategy, which involved tweaking and manipulating the policy to benefit certain entities.

The CBI specifically highlighted an instance where the profit margins for wholesalers were increased from 5% to 12%, a change that allegedly resulted in a substantial windfall for specific groups in exchange for illegal gratification of Rs 100 crores from the “South Group”—a consortium of liquor businesses from southern India.

The CBI also argued that Kejriwal cannot claim parity with other accused individuals, such as Sisodia, due to his key role in the criminal conspiracy. The agency emphasized that all decisions related to the Delhi government and the AAP were made solely under Kejriwal’s direction.

A significant part of the affidavit was dedicated to tracing the financial transactions linked to the excise policy. The CBI alleged that Rs 44.54 crore was funneled through hawala channels from Delhi to Goa to fund the AAP’s election campaign during the 2021-22 Goa Assembly elections.

These funds were reportedly received and distributed by individuals closely associated with the party, including Chanpreet Singh Rayat and Rajiv Ashok Mondkar, under the instructions of Vijay Nair, a key figure in AAP’s campaign strategy.

The affidavit also pointed to data retrieved from hard drives and mobile phones of the accused, which allegedly corroborated Kejriwal’s involvement. This evidence reportedly includes WhatsApp chats, screenshots, and contact details linking Kejriwal to the financial transactions and policy decisions under investigation. According to the CBI, these documents suggest a direct connection between Kejriwal and the illicit activities, further implicating him in the case.

The CBI also highlighted Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation during the investigation. The agency claimed that when Kejriwal was interrogated in Tihar Jail on June 25, 2024, he was “evasive and non-cooperative,” failing to provide satisfactory answers about his role in the Rs 100-crore bribe allegedly paid to the AAP by the ‘South Group.’

Despite being confronted with incriminating evidence, the CBI alleged that Kejriwal provided contradictory statements and concealed critical information, thereby impeding the investigation. This behavior, according to the CBI, justified Kejriwal’s arrest.

The affidavit further detailed that the decision to arrest Kejriwal was not made lightly and was only taken after his interrogation revealed his “pivotal role” in the conspiracy, along with his attempts to derail the investigation.

The CBI underscored that Kejriwal’s influence, both as the Delhi Chief Minister and as the AAP’s national convener, posed a significant risk to the integrity of the investigation, particularly with the potential for witness tampering and evidence destruction.

The CBI also sought to counter Kejriwal’s claim that his arrest was unwarranted, arguing that all procedural requirements under the law, including those under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, were meticulously followed. The agency stressed that the necessity for Kejriwal’s arrest was thoroughly documented in the case diary, which was reviewed by both the special court and the Delhi High Court.

Additionally, the CBI pointed out that Kejriwal’s arrest was sanctioned by the relevant authorities under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, following a comprehensive investigation that indicated his central role in the alleged crimes.

PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT

On Aug 14, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) related to the alleged excise policy scam.

The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, issued a notice to the CBI in response to the plea filed by Kejriwal challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision that upheld his arrest by the investigative agency.

“We are not granting any interim bail. We will issue notice,”

-the bench conveyed to Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was representing Kejriwal.

The case has been scheduled for a hearing on August 23.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who appeared for Kejriwal, sought interim bail on health grounds as Justice Surya Kant directed the issuance of a notice.

“We have filed for interim bail due to health issues,”

-Singhvi said.

In response, Justice Kant replied,

“No interim bail.”

Singhvi argued,

“Just when the ED judgment was about to be delivered, the CBI arrested him. There are health issues involved, and we are pressing for interim bail.”

Justice Kant responded,

“No interim bail. We are issuing a notice”.

Previously, on August 5, the Delhi High Court had upheld the legality of the Chief Minister’s arrest, ruling that there was no malice in the actions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The court noted that Kejriwal’s arrest was justified as it showed how he could potentially influence witnesses, who only felt secure enough to testify following his detention.

The excise policy in question was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi Lieutenant Governor ordered a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and corruption in the formulation and execution of the policy.

According to both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), there were irregularities in the modifications made to the excise policy, and undue favors were allegedly extended to license holders.

BACKGROUND

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, currently imprisoned, approached the Supreme Court in an effort to overturn his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to the Delhi excise policy case.

This legal move comes after the Delhi High Court, on August 5, declined to nullify Kejriwal’s arrest by the central investigative agency. The denial by the High Court prompted Kejriwal to file an immediate appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking relief.

The petition in the Supreme Court has been submitted through advocate Vivek Jain.

Kejriwal was apprehended by the CBI on June 26 while he was already under judicial custody due to a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Although the Supreme Court later granted him interim bail in the ED case, Kejriwal remains incarcerated because he has not yet secured bail in the CBI case.

In his legal battle, Kejriwal had filed two distinct petitions before the Delhi High Court—one requesting bail and the other challenging the legality of his arrest by the CBI. However, the High Court rejected the petition to quash the arrest. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that

“there were adequate grounds to arrest Kejriwal.”

Regarding his bail application, the High Court did not delve into the substantive merits of the case but instead directed Kejriwal to seek bail from the trial court. Kejriwal had initially approached the High Court directly to request bail.

This legal situation unfolds in the backdrop of a recent Supreme Court decision where bail was granted to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, who is embroiled in the same case.

The Supreme Court expressed its concern that lower courts, including High Courts and trial courts, appear to be “playing it safe” by routinely denying bail in criminal cases, rather than adhering to the principle that “granting bail should be the norm.”

CASE TITLE:
Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi Excise Policy Case

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES