The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (April 9) rejected Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma affirmed Kejriwal’s arrest and subsequent detention, citing sufficient evidence presented by the ED, including statements from witnesses and the admission by an AAP candidate that Kejriwal received funds for the Goa elections. Consequently, it was concluded that the provisions of section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are applicable in this instance.
&
#WATCH | On Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by ED dismissed by Delhi High Court, ASG SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi liquor policy case says, “Today the judge gave the judgement after seeing all the evidence and the court also… pic.twitter.com/vA608tfEpb
— ANI (@ANI) April 9, 2024
;
The High Court said, “Material collected by ED reveals that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in the formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. He is also allegedly involved in a personal capacity in the formulation of policy and demanding kickbacks and secondly in the capacity of national convenor of AAP.”
Regarding Kejriwal’s objections concerning the timing of his arrest before the General elections, the Court stated that the legality of his arrest and detention must be assessed by the law, regardless of election timing. It emphasized that contesting the timing of the arrest without evidence of malice on the part of the ED is not viable.
Furthermore, Kejriwal’s legal representation had raised doubts about the credibility of statements made against him by witnesses. It was contended that these statements may have been made in exchange for their release from custody or for being nominated as candidates in elections.
The court also emphasized that matters regarding the allocation of election tickets or the acquisition of electoral bonds are beyond its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the court stated that Kejriwal would have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including approvers, at the appropriate phase of the legal proceedings. Regarding the issue of documents not being provided and earlier statements of approvers, the court clarified that access to documents would be granted during the trial stage, but not at the current juncture.
Kejriwal is presently under judicial custody following his arrest on the night of March 21. Initially, he was remanded to six days of ED custody by the trial court on March 22, which was later extended by an additional four days. Subsequently, on April 1, he was remanded to judicial custody until April 15.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Kejriwal, while ASG SV Raju appeared on behalf of the ED.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the central investigative agency failed to adhere to Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which grants it authority to issue summons and collect evidence.
Singhvi asserted that the ED coerced approvers Raghav Magunta, Sarath Reddy, and Magunta Reddy into providing statements against Kejriwal. He further alleged that two of the approvers have affiliations with the ruling party.
Kejriwal had failed to respond to nine summons issued by the ED. Additionally, Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are implicated in the case. While Sisodia remains under judicial custody, Singh was recently granted bail by the Supreme Court.
Upon his arrest, Kejriwal promptly filed an urgent petition before the Supreme Court challenging the legality of his arrest. However, this petition was later withdrawn.
Furthermore, Kejriwal had previously approached the Delhi High Court (division bench) to challenge the summons issued by the central investigative agency. He also filed an application seeking interim protection. The hearing for this matter is scheduled for April 22.
Kejriwal’s absence during the summons was justified on the grounds of their alleged illegitimacy.
The ED alleges that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to provide certain private companies with a 12% wholesale business profit, although such a provision was not recorded in the minutes of meetings of the Group of Ministers (GoM).
The central agency further asserts that there was a coordinated conspiracy led by Vijay Nair and other individuals, along with the South Group, to provide wholesalers with exceptional profit margins.
