The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): In a recent interview with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi High Court, presented a compelling case against the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) arrest of Kejriwal in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor scam. Dr. Singhvi argued that the arrest not only lacked concrete evidence but also violated the basic structure of the Constitution by impacting the level playing field in elections and democracy.
Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Singhvi clarified that only one out of his ten arguments in court focused on the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest. His primary arguments revolved around the lack of necessity for arrest, the availability of Kejriwal for investigation, and the violation of the basic structure and level playing field guaranteed by the Constitution.
Dr. Singhvi contended that the ED’s case heavily relies on the statements of four key witnesses – Buchi Babu, Magunta Reddy, Raghav Reddy, and Sarath Reddy. He pointed out a recurring pattern in their statements, where they initially gave exculpatory statements not mentioning Kejriwal. However, after being arrested, allegedly harassed, and later granted bail, they changed their statements to implicate the Delhi Chief Minister. Subsequently, these witnesses were given pardons or approver status. Dr. Singhvi cited case law to argue that relying solely on co-accused and approver statements without independent corroboration is insufficient to build a strong case.
Addressing the ED’s claim of establishing a money trail between the South group distillers, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leadership, and monies allegedly paid in Goa and Punjab for election campaigns, Dr. Singhvi argued that the ED has been making future claims without presenting concrete evidence since August 2022. He bolstered his argument by citing a Supreme Court judgment in the Manish Sisodia case, which found no prima facie evidence of the alleged money trail to Goa.
Dr. Singhvi challenged the ED’s grounds for arrest, asserting that the 20-page document presented as evidence only included statements from the four witnesses, without any concrete proof of Kejriwal receiving, using, projecting, or converting the alleged proceeds of crime. He emphasized that mere allegations and adjectives like “mastermind” do not justify keeping a person behind bars without substantive evidence.
The most significant argument put forth by Dr. Singhvi was that Kejriwal’s arrest violated the basic structure of the Constitution. He referred to the landmark Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narayan judgment, which established that democracy and free and fair elections are part of the basic structure. Dr. Singhvi argued that arresting a political party leader on the cusp of an election, based on an old case, skews the level playing field and hinders the party’s ability to effectively contest the election. He questioned the urgency and necessity of the arrest, given that Kejriwal had been summoned in October 2023 and had not fled in the intervening six months.
Dr. Singhvi also highlighted the potential impact of Kejriwal’s arrest on the AAP, suggesting that it could lead to the disintegration of the party by rendering it leaderless during a crucial election period. He likened the situation to a football match where the captain or goalkeeper is arrested, making it impossible to play the game fairly.
Dr. Singhvi emphasized that Kejriwal’s legal team expects justice from the constitutional courts, as they are the last resort and independent of the executive. He stressed that it is during such times that the entire constitutional fiber is tested.
