Delhi HC Disposes PIL To Prevent CM Arvind Kejriwal From Issuing Directions From Custody, Asks ED To Place Matter Before District Judge

The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed of a public interest litigation to prevent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from issuing directions or orders while in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following his arrest in the liquor policy case.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked the central probe agency to bring the issue to the attention of District judge dealing with Kejriwal's case.

This was after the petitioner claimed that Kejriwal has access to computer, printer and other devices. ED submitted a note to the Court and submitted it has not provided any such apparatus to the CM. However, it added that the agency is seized of the issue and will take action if required.

Court thus suggested that the petition may be treated as a representation and the ED should place it before the trial court. It ordered,

"This court directs the ED to bring the contents of the note to the attention of the district judge dealing with the case, to pass orders in accordance with law. The court has not commented on the locus of the petitioner and all points on merits are left open."

The PIL was moved by one Surjit Singh Yadav, a Delhi resident claiming to be a farmer and social worker. It sought a direction on the Union Government, ED and Delhi Government to restrain Kejriwal from issuing directions while in police custody.

Kejriwal is presently in ED custody. He was arrested on March 21. The next day, the trial court remanded him to six days of ED custody, which was extended by further four days. His second ED remand is ending today.

His counsel Rahul Mehra pointed this is third such petition filed before the High Court. "What is the basis of this apprehension," he asked, adding that the Petitioner must show some material to invoke court's writ jurisdiction. "This will open a Pandora's box. ED is well equipped. How is this third party coming in and interfering?" Mehra argued.

However, Court suggested that the petition be treated as a representation.

Last week, the bench had dismissed a different PIL moved by Yadav, observing that he failed to show any bar in the law which prohibits the arrested CM from holding office.

In this PIL, adirection was sought on ED not to provide a typist, computer and printer to Kejriwal while he is in police custody.

The plea also sought the registration of a complaint and investigation against Kejriwal as to how the direction or order issued by him while in police custody reached Delhi Minister Atishi.

“That the Respondent No. 4 while in the Custody of Respondent No. 2 is having the access of Typist, Computer and printer etc. and issuing direction/order in the capacity of the Chief Minister of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi which is against the legal framework of investigation provided under the law which cannot be made selectively available only to some persons and denied to others,” the plea stated.

It added that there is a likelihood that the direction or order issued by Kejriwal in the capacity of Chief Minister may influence the fair and proper investigation by ED.

Kejriwal had skipped nine summons issued to him by ED. Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are also accused in the case and are presently in judicial custody.

ED has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies, although such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of the Group of Ministers (GoM). Kejriwal is the "kingpin", ED alleged.

The Central agency has also claimed that there was a conspiracy that was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers.

Nair was acting on behalf of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, according to the agency.

Title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 385