‘Enough material’: Delhi High Court rejects Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against arrest by ED

Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, April 9

Spelling further trouble for beleaguered Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed his petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case linked to Delhi excise policy scam, saying there was no violation of law or the Supreme Court’s verdicts.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED and his subsequent remand in the Enforcement Directorate’s custody and later in judicial custody can’t be held to be illegal as the probe agency was in possession of “enough material” that led to his arrest, and the trial court remanded him in the custody of the agency by a well-reasoned order.

Rejecting his allegation of political vendetta on the eve of Lok Sabha elections, Justice Sharma said, “Courts are concerned with constitutional morality and not political morality.” The court had to apply the law as it existed, she added.

“Material collected by the ED reveals that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in formulation of the excise policy and used the proceeds of the crime. He is also allegedly involved in his personal capacity in formulation of the policy and demanding kickbacks in the capacity of national convener of AAP,” said Justice Sharma, dismissing Kejriwal’s petition.

It said there was evidence to show that the proceeds of crime were used for political campaigning in the 2022 Goa Assembly elections. The ED had arrested Kejriwal on March 21 after the High Court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the probe agency in the money laundering case. On April 1, a Delhi special court sent Kejriwal to 14-day judicial custody till April 15.

The ED alleged that Kejriwal was the kingpin of the scam and there were reasons to believe on the basis of material in its possession that the AAP leader was guilty of the offence of money laundering.

“This court is of the opinion that the accused has been arrested and his arrest and remand has to be examined as per law, and not as per timing of elections… Political considerations cannot be brought before the court as these are not relevant... The court must remain vigilant that it is not influenced by any extraneous factors,” the HC said. It said Kejriwal’s challenge against his arrest was not sustainable in the absence of any mala fide on part of the ED.

“It is important to clarify that the matter is not a conflict between the central government and petitioner Kejriwal. Instead, it is a case between Kejriwal and the Directorate of Enforcement,” it said. Dismissing Kejriwal’s argument that the ED could have visited his residence to record his statement, the Bench said the investigation couldn’t be conducted at the convenience of the accused. It said there can’t be two categories of laws—one for the common citizens and the other for a chief minister or any person in power.

At the very outset, Justice Sharma, who had reserved her verdict on Kejriwal’s petition on April 3 after hearing arguments from senior counsel AM Singhvi for the Delhi CM and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED, clarified that Kejriwal’s petition was not for bail, and that it was challenging his arrest by the ED.

Rejecting Kejriwal’s allegation that two of the approvers against him were linked to the BJP, Justice Sharma said, “In this court’s opinion, who gives the ticket for contesting elections to whom or who purchases electoral bonds for what purpose is not the concern of this court as this court is required to apply the law and the evidence before it as it is and in the context in which it has been placed on record.”

‘Don’t cast aspersions on judicial process’

• Delhi HC rebuked Kejriwal for ‘casting aspersions’ on judicial process with his claim about an approver in money laundering case making donations to BJP via electoral bonds
• It said law on approvers was 100 years old and not enacted to implicate him; court was only responsible for applying provisions to case before it & not concerned with who bought bonds
• It added casting aspersions on the manner of granting pardon or recording statements of approvers amounted to casting doubts on the judicial process

Will move SC

We respect the institution of HC but don’t agree with its order and will move the Supreme Court against it. — Saurabh Bharadwaj, Delhi minister

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#Arvind Kejriwal #Enforcement Directorate