[BREAKING] "Why Before Elections": SC Questions Delhi CM Kejriwal's Arrest

The Supreme Court Today (April 30th) questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the timing of the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

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

[BREAKING] "Why Before Elections": SC Questions Delhi CM Kejriwal's Arrest | ED to Respond on Friday

NEW DELHI: The timing and circumstances surrounding the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections have come under scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, presiding over the case, raised pertinent inquiries aimed at understanding the rationale behind the actions of the ED. Scheduled for further deliberation on Friday, the bench posed a series of questions encapsulating legal nuances and procedural fairness.

“Without there being adjudicatory proceeding, can you have criminal proceedings initiated?”

-questioned the Bench, drawing attention to the precedents set forth in cases such as Pankaj Bansal v Union of India and Vijay Madanlal v. Union of India. The absence of attachment proceedings in Kejriwal’s case thus far raised doubts, prompting the Court to seek clarity on the petitioner’s involvement.

Addressing the complexity of the legal landscape, the Court sought elucidation on the application of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“They think threshold of Section 19…is fairly high,”

-remarked the Bench, reflecting on the burden placed on the prosecution rather than the accused. This prompted introspection into the interpretation of legal thresholds and the equitable application of justice.

Delving into procedural safeguards, the Court examined the temporal dynamics between the initiation of proceedings and subsequent actions such as arrest.

“Then the time gap between initiation of proceedings and then the action of arrest etc…”

-emphasized the Bench, highlighting the significance of Section 8 and the limitations it imposes. The juxtaposition of legal provisions with fundamental rights underscored the delicate balance between law enforcement and individual liberties.

Concerns over the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, notably preceding the general elections, echoed throughout the proceedings.

“Then the timing of arrest which is just before the general elections,”

-voiced the Bench, hinting at potential implications on democratic processes and electoral integrity.

In the backdrop of legal precedents, the Court revisited the judgments in Vijay Madanlal and Pankaj Bansal cases. Upholding the provisions of the PMLA in Vijay Madanlal, the Court acknowledged the discretionary powers conferred upon ED officers under Section 19. Meanwhile, the mandate for transparency in arrest procedures, as emphasized in Pankaj Bansal, reinforced the importance of due process and procedural fairness.

During the proceedings Today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, underscored the lack of concrete evidence implicating the Delhi Chief Minister in the ongoing investigation into the Delhi Excise Policy case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Singhvi emphasized,

“No trace of proceeds of crime and lack of proof of direct involvement,”

-highlighting the importance of substantiated allegations in legal proceedings.

Singhvi meticulously dissected the statements of Magunta Reddy, a pivotal figure in the case, drawing attention to the temporal incongruities surrounding his interactions with Kejriwal. He elucidated,

“Please see the chart…the questions to Mr. Magunta Reddy…it was stated he met for 5-6 minutes to discuss charity work and not the policy in question,”

-thereby challenging the veracity of the allegations against Kejriwal.

Moreover, Singhvi raised questions regarding the sequence of events following Magunta Reddy’s cooperation with authorities, particularly noting the absence of objections from the ED to Raghav Reddy’s bail application after his father’s cooperation.

Singhvi highlighted the strategic timing of Raghav Reddy’s incriminating statements, suggesting a pattern of post-arrest testimonies aimed at implicating Kejriwal. He emphasized the discrepancy between Raghav Reddy’s initial statements and the subsequent allegations, insinuating a potential ulterior motive behind the timing of the disclosures.

Singhvi further criticized the ED’s application of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing that it unjustly elevated the bail conditions beyond the intended scope of the law. He contended,

“This is creating higher threshold of Section 45 and reading it into the predicate offence,”

-signaling a departure from established legal standards.

In a strategic move, Singhvi juxtaposed Kejriwal’s arrest timeline with that of Vijay Nair, the AAP communications in-charge, who was apprehended earlier in connection with the same case. Singhvi’s inquiry into the disparate treatment of individuals implicated in the case underscored concerns regarding procedural fairness and selective enforcement.

The Court then told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for the ED,

“Yes, Mr Raju, we will ask you this. This was not arising in Sanjay Singh case, but here we will ask you.”

Justice Khanna, while deliberating on the legal intricacies, referenced the discussions on “reasons to believe” in the Vijay Madanlal judgment, signaling the Court’s engagement with precedent and legal principles. The judge’s inquiry into the procedural prerequisites outlined in the judgment underscored the Court’s commitment to upholding due process and adherence to legal standards.

Towards the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Khanna candidly reflected on the potential perceptions of bias, acknowledging the delicate balance between judicial assignments and public perception. His introspective remark underscored the judiciary’s commitment to transparency and judicial integrity amidst the complexities of high-profile cases.

In essence, Singhvi’s arguments and the Court’s deliberations during Tuesday’s proceedings shed light on the nuanced legal considerations surrounding Kejriwal’s arrest, underscoring the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards in ensuring justice.

Following the dismissal of his plea by the Delhi High Court, Arvind Kejriwal took his battle against arrest and remand to the Supreme Court. This move reflects the intensity of the legal confrontation surrounding the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering probe, which traces its origins to a case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 17, 2022.

The CBI’s investigation, prompted by a complaint from Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022, revolves around alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22.

At the heart of the allegations lies a purported criminal conspiracy involving key figures of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), including Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. The accusations suggest that certain loopholes intentionally embedded in the policy were exploited to favor select licensees and collaborators following the tender process. This narrative has led to a series of arrests, with AAP leaders like Sisodia and Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh finding themselves entangled in the legal web spun by the ED.

Kejriwal’s own arrest on March 21 thrusts him into the center of this legal maelstrom, culminating in his current confinement at Tihar Jail. The ED’s contention that Kejriwal should not be treated differently due to his political stature underscores the broader constitutional principles of equality under Article 14. Kejriwal’s counsel vehemently argued that while a Chief Minister is not immune from prosecution, he is entitled to the same rights and legal protections as any other individual.

The unfolding legal drama surrounding Kejriwal’s arrest epitomizes the intersection of politics and law, with implications extending far beyond individual culpability. As the case unfolds in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, it serves as a crucible for testing the resilience of India’s democratic institutions and the primacy of justice in the face of political turbulence.

PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT

The Supreme Court Yesterday decided to postpone the hearing regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal‘s challenge against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), with proceedings set to continue Tomorrow-April 30th.

This decision came after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, informed the court that additional time was needed to complete his argument, estimating another hour would suffice.

During the session, Singhvi highlighted several deficiencies in the prosecution’s approach, criticizing the selective use of witness testimonies and the lack of solid evidence against the Chief Minister. He argued that the prosecution was not adhering to standards of fairness in handling the case.

“We are down to prosecutor deciding what is relevant. This is not fairness! Sarath Reddy does not inculpate me till April. But does ED give reason to rely on his 10th statement? Ignoring 9 and going for 10th statement…it should not be like this,”

-Singhvi remarked. He emphasized that reliance on co-accused testimonies is permissible only when substantiated by further evidence, as per the foundational principles of criminal law.

“What was the necessity to arrest? This was not a hardened criminal or a terrorist,”

–Singhvi questioned, challenging the rationale behind Kejriwal’s detention.

Singhvi also pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies that the prosecution chose to ignore:

“Raghav Magunta made 4 statements – all exculpatory or not relied upon. Sarath Reddy made no allegations in his 9 statements. These were put in unrelied documents. Fairness of a prosecutor is the uppermost consideration. Obligation of prosecutor is to bring exculpatory material to light. You pick and choose? This is a cat and mouse game,”

-he told the court.

Additionally, Singhvi raised concerns about potential biases in the case, noting that family members of some approvers, on whose statements the ED’s case was built, had affiliations with the ruling party at the center.

When Justice Khanna highlighted that Kejriwal had ignored several summons from the ED, Singhvi defended his client’s actions:

“I (Kejriwal) went when CBI called. I replied to ED notices in detail. I said I was not going to come. But today, you cannot arrest by saying ‘you did not come so we arrested’. It is my right not to go… that cannot be a ground for arrest,” he asserted.

The hearing is scheduled to resume tomorrow, as the Supreme Court looks to further delve into the complexities of this high-profile case. This significant legal battle continues to draw attention, reflecting the intricate balance between law enforcement practices and individual rights within India’s legal framework.