The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal whether his action of skipping nine Enforcement Directorate (ED) summonses undermined his argument against the legality of his arrest in the Delhi liquor policy case without first recording his statement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“Are you not contradicting yourself? On one hand, you say your statement under Section 50 is not recorded, but on the other hand, you don’t appear before ED to record your statement,” a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kejriwal.
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere. Explore now!
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener could make an argument that not appearing before ED officers would alone not constitute a ground to arrest him, the court observed. “But you cannot say that because my statement has not been recorded under Section 50, I cannot be arrested,” the bench said.
Responding, Singhvi emphasised his primary ground remained that there was no material against his client to satisfy the conditions required for making an arrest under the money laundering law. He maintained that other evidence failed to establish Kejriwal’s culpability, thus rendering his arrest unjustifiable.
“There is a different threshold for arrest under the PMLA. There is no material nor a reason to believe that I am guilty of the offence…I am saying my arrest is illegal…You are arresting me in March after the Model Code of Conduct is declared. You should either have some material to connect me or there must be some new material on my guilt,” Singhvi submitted.
The court will continue hearing Singhvi’s submissions on Tuesday in the petition moved by Kejriwal challenging the validity of his arrest by the ED on March 21 over alleged money laundering charges in connection with the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy. Additional solicitor general SV Raju appeared for the ED.
Read more: Sunita Kejriwal, Atishi meet Arvind Kejriwal in Tihar jail: ‘Delhi CM asked if…’
The Delhi chief minister had turned to the Supreme Court on April 10, less than 24 hours after the Delhi high court rejected his plea against arrest on March 21 while holding that the agency possesses adequate evidence at this stage to suggest Kejriwal’s involvement in money laundering related to the liquor policy case.
Replying to Kejriwal’s petition by filing an affidavit last week, the federal agency told the court there were no special provisions under PMLA that distinguishes between the arrest of a chief minister and an ordinary citizen. Calling Kejriwal “the kingpin and key conspirator of the Delhi excise scam”, ED stressed the decision to arrest him was based on substantial evidence and legal grounds.
It refuted his contention regarding the timing of his arrest — that it was to disable him from campaigning for his party during the Lok Sabha polls — and highlighted the chief minister’s alleged evasion of investigation for nearly six months, during which he skipped nine of the agency’s summonses.
Rebutting ED’s contentions, Kejriwal, filing his rejoinder affidavit on Saturday, contested his arrest, labelling it as “illegal” and an “unprecedented assault” on democracy, besides condemning ED’s actions as a glaring display of “highhandedness” by the agency.
His affidavit argued his arrest not only violated his personal rights, but also undermined the democratic fabric of the nation, portraying his arrest as an unprecedented attempt to undermine the principles of free and fair elections and federalism. The Delhi chief minister, who remains in judicial custody, said the money laundering case against him was a calculated move by the central government to suppress its political opposition, particularly the AAP and its leadership.
Read more: ‘Arvind Kejriwal ‘sher’, nobody can break him’: Sunita Kejriwal at maiden roadshow in Delhi
Arguing for Kejriwal, Singhvi on Monday underlined that Kejriwal’s detention by ED was invalid under Section 19 of the PMLA and emphasised the necessity for tangible evidence to justify such actions during the Model Code of Conduct.
Responding to the ED’s assertion that Kejriwal should not receive preferential treatment due to his political status, Singhvi stressed his entitlement to rights equal to those of any citizen, adding that biased treatment by the prosecution warranted Kejriwal’s release from custody. Singhvi highlighted discrepancies in the evidence presented by ED, noting selective reliance on incriminating statements while disregarding exculpatory ones.
The Delhi excise policy case has embroiled several high-profile names, including former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislator K Kavitha, who are incarcerated in the Capital’s Tihar jail.
AAP MP Sanjay Singh’s release on bail earlier this month had come after the top court asked the agency why Singh should be kept behind bars after serving six months in jail, considering that there didn’t appear to be any concrete evidence against him, and no money was recovered linking him to the alleged money laundering offence. Another AAP lawmaker, Satyendar Jain, is also lodged in Tihar jail over charges of money laundering in a different case.
