The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court heard arguments from Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an alleged liquor policy scam. Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21st, argued that the timing of the arrest, just ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, was politically motivated and violated the principle of free and fair elections.
Singhvi contended that while the first summons was issued by the ED to Kejriwal in October 2023, the arrest happened only in March 2024, suggesting mala fide intent. He underscored that no material or proceeds have been recovered in the case and that the ED made the arrest without conducting any inquiry or recording a statement from Kejriwal that could form the basis for the arrest.
“There is zero Section 50 material and because there is zero Section 50 material, there is zero Section 19 PMLA material,” Singhvi argued, referring to the relevant sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He added that the ED did not record any statement from Kejriwal under Section 50 at his residence.
Responding to the ED’s claim that Kejriwal did not respond to their summons, Singhvi stated that the Chief Minister had replied in writing every time. He further argued that the benchmark to arrest a person under PMLA is higher because obtaining bail is also more difficult. “The test is not ‘can arrest’. The test is ‘should arrest’,” Singhvi asserted, emphasizing that there should be a strong necessity to arrest a person.
Singhvi questioned the need to arrest Kejriwal, arguing that he is not a flight risk and can hardly do anything to tamper with evidence or witnesses since 1.5 years have passed since the initiation of the case. He also pointed out that Kejriwal has been arrested based on statements by other accused persons who have since turned approvers, were granted bail, and have donated money to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Specifically, Singhvi referred to the statements given by accused-approver Sarath Chandra Reddy, noting that seven of his nine statements did not name Kejriwal even when queries were put to him specifically about the Delhi CM. Reddy gave statements implicating Kejriwal on April 25 and 29 last year and was immediately granted bail and later pardoned, Singhvi revealed.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raju, appearing for the ED, argued that while Singhvi had presented the matter like a bail petition, Kejriwal’s petition had actually challenged his arrest and remand. The ASG stated that the investigation against Kejriwal was at a nascent stage and that the present custody of Kejriwal was under fresh remand orders, not the ones being challenged in the petition.
ASG Raju also highlighted that the trial court had taken cognizance of the matter, indicating that money laundering had indeed taken place. “The fact that the offence of money laundering has taken place is beyond any doubt. Courts have taken cognisance,” he stated, adding that cognizance had been taken in all five prosecution complaints.
Regarding Kejriwal’s arguments on witness statements, the ASG said, “Just because some witness has not named you does not mean the statement is exculpatory.” He asserted that the arrest was based on evidence, including WhatsApp chats, statements from hawala operators, and a large amount of Income Tax data.
The hearing concluded with the court reserving its judgment on Kejriwal’s petition. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections and the political landscape in Delhi. As the nation awaits the court’s decision, the debate surrounding the timing and motives behind Kejriwal’s arrest continues to dominate headlines.
