The Supreme Court of India reserved its verdict on a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Excise Policy case. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, reviewed the written records of the case and requested the ED to provide a chart demonstrating new evidence that emerged after the arrest of former Delhi Deputy CM, Manish Sisodia
New Delhi: Today (17th May): The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case.
READ ALSO: [Breaking] SC Rejects Plea to Remove Arvind Kejriwal as Delhi CM
The Bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, reviewed the case documents and requested the ED to present a chart detailing any new evidence that emerged post the arrest of former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, justifying Kejriwal’s arrest.
The court stated, “Arguments heard. Judgment reserved,” and clarified that Kejriwal retains the liberty to apply for bail in the interim period.
Kejriwal was detained by the ED on March 21, accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy with Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Sisodia, to exploit the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 for undue benefits to certain liquor vendors.
Recently, the court granted Kejriwal interim bail until June 1 to facilitate his participation in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest had previously been dismissed by the Delhi High Court, prompting the current appeal to the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, contended that the evidence cited by the ED to justify Kejriwal’s arrest was not new and had already been part of the Sisodia case.
He argued, “All this evidence was in the Sisodia case… so what was new in Arvind Kejriwal’s case? The evidence is all prior to August 2023.”
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal Returns to Tihar: A Review of Previous Jail Sentences
Singhvi also pointed out that there was no mention in the “ground of arrest” about the alleged use of funds for AAP’s Goa election campaign.
He responded to the ED’s claim that bribe money from the excise policy case was used for the Goa campaign, stating,
“The entire charge is Rs 100 crores… this is old news. No money has been transferred.”
Singhvi further criticized the ED’s reliance on a witness statement alleging Kejriwal’s stay in a seven-star hotel in Goa. He highlighted that the witness, Charanpreet Singh, was not mentioned in the initial “reasons to believe” provided to Kejriwal.
Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) allows the ED to arrest individuals if there are “reasons to believe” they are guilty of money laundering.
Singhvi argued that the ED’s approach violated this provision, saying, “The legislature has used a threshold in Section 19, and the prosecutor is rewriting this.”
When ASG Raju stated that the “reason to believe” is not disclosed to the accused, the Court questioned how the accused could contest the arrest without such information.
Raju clarified that the “reason to believe” is based on the material available to the ED officer. He emphasized that, in criminal law, accused individuals are not entitled to this information before the chargesheet is filed. This precaution is taken to prevent tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.
In response, the Court emphasized that the Investigating Officer (IO) should refrain from exercising the power to arrest under Section 19 unless there is sufficient material demonstrating the accused’s guilt.
Regarding the Rs 100 crore bribe allegation, Singhvi noted the lack of any witness statement directly implicating Kejriwal, with an approver’s statement only referencing Rs 25 crore.
He also mentioned the involvement of Sarath Reddy, a director at Aurobindo Pharma, who purchased Rs 55 crore in electoral bonds, questioning the credibility of the ED’s witnesses.
Singhvi criticized the ED’s late-stage claims about chats between Kejriwal and hawala operators, suggesting these were intended to prejudice his client.
In response, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that the hawala operators were recently arrested and that relevant evidence was obtained from them. He emphasized that the “reason to believe” for arrest under Section 19 PMLA is not shared with the accused to prevent evidence tampering and witness intimidation.
The Court questioned the necessity of sufficient material for arrest under Section 19, emphasizing the need for credible evidence before exercising such power.
READ ALSO: [BREAKING] Delhi Court Denies Arvind Kejriwal Additional Time for Lawyer Consultation
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju concluded his arguments, asserting that the Court should not assess the credibility of evidence at this stage and warning that entertaining such pleas could set a precedent, leading to numerous similar petitions.
“The reason to believe is the material before him (ED officer). In criminal law, they are not entitled to any copy before chargesheet is filed… else evidence will be tampered and witnesses will be threatened,” Raju said in response.
The Court remarked that the Investigating Officer (IO) should not exercise the power to arrest under Section 19 unless “they have sufficient material to show that he is guilty”.
ASG Raju emphasized that, at this stage, the court should not assess the credibility of the evidence. He drew the court’s attention to the provision related to the procedure for framing charges and stated that, during the discharge stage, the court should solely rely on the material presented by the prosecution. Raju argued that entertaining pleas to scrutinize arrests would have far-reaching consequences.
“If such a plea to examine the arrest is entertained, it will open a Pandora’s box,” Raju asserted. “Every other time, someone will come up with a petition like this. Magistrates are not required to read through thousands of papers and work late into the night.”
The Supreme Court’s decision on Kejriwal’s arrest challenge is now pending, with the Court’s judgment reserved.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON ARVIND KEJRIWAL
