New Delhi: In a huge setback for Aam Aadmi Party’s national convenor and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected his petition contesting his detention by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Excise Policy money laundering case. Responding to his plea, the Delhi High Court said that material collected by the 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, the High Court observed.
Delhi High Court further stated that to cast doubt on the manner of recording the statement of the approver would amount to casting aspersions on the Court and judge. This is not the first case or last case where the approver has been made. HC further says the law of approver is over 100 years old and not one year old. It cannot be suggested that it was enacted to implicate the present petitioner, according to the news agency ANI. The high court also said that “Political considerations can’t be brought before a court of law. The matter before this court is not a conflict between the central govt and Kejriwal. It’s a case between Kejriwal and ED.”
Pronouncing its order, the high court stated that this court thinks that the accused has been arrested and his arrest and remand have to be examined as per law and not as per the timing of elections, Delhi High Court added that “Judges are bound by law and not by politics. Judgments are written by legal principles and not political affiliations.”.
The verdict, which was initially expected at 2:30 pm, was delivered by Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the High Court. Last week, this bench reserved its decision following comprehensive arguments from both parties. Kejriwal has disputed both his arrest and the subsequent ED custody authorized by the lower court.
Representing Kejriwal, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the case is marred by conspicuous timing issues, suggesting a deliberate attempt to exclude the petitioner from the democratic process and to dismantle his political party.
Singhvi contended, “The arrest’s timing is suspect, raising questions about democratic fairness. The arrest was made without any preliminary inquiry or statement, which is unusual as Section 50 was not invoked. The apparent motive behind the arrest seems to be to demean, embarrass, and incapacitate the petitioner. Despite an extensive investigation spanning over a year, the authorities are now seeking to implicate the Chief Minister.”
Countering Kejriwal’s petition, the Enforcement Directorate’s counsel, ASG SV Raju, maintained that the plea’s arguments resemble those of a bail request rather than an appeal to invalidate the arrest. The investigation is still in its early stages, and as it pertains to Kejriwal, it remains incomplete, the ED contended while opposing the challenge to his arrest.
Raju argued, “No challenge has been raised against the remand order… It’s uncertain whether he can contest these orders while simultaneously acknowledging the remand. The petitioner is attempting to have it both ways, which is untenable. One cannot simultaneously dispute the remand and accept it.”
On Tuesday, the ED submitted a response to the Delhi High Court, objecting to Kejriwal’s challenge to his arrest. The agency highlighted that Kejriwal had been given numerous chances to collaborate with the ongoing investigation by responding to nine summons. Nevertheless, he chose to deliberately ignore these summons, avoiding the investigation without substantial justification.
In its response to the High Court, the ED asserted that Kejriwal’s arrest was executed in strict compliance with the law and noted that the Chief Minister had forfeited his right to contest his current detention, rendering any argument against the legality of his present custody baseless. Furthermore, the ED alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) significantly profited from the illicit funds generated by the Delhi Liquor Scam, with approximately Rs 45 crores purportedly used to finance AAP’s campaign in the 2022 Goa Assembly elections.
According to the ED, AAP engaged in money laundering activities through Arvind Kejriwal, with the offences falling under section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The ED described AAP as a collective of individuals registered under Section 29-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Delhi High Court had recently called for a response from the ED following a petition by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, which contested both his arrest and the ED custody sanctioned by the trial court.
