'Why Don't You Appear?' Delhi High Court Asks Arvind Kejriwal, Seeks ED's Response On Maintainability Of His Plea Against Agency's Summons

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought response of Enforcement Directorate (ED) on maintainability of the plea filed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging the summons issued to him by the central probe agency in relation to the alleged liquor policy scam.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain granted ED two weeks' time to file the reply. Kejriwal is also granted one week time to file a rejoinder.

The matter will now be heard on April 22.

ASG SV Raju appeared for ED on advance notice and opposed the issuance of formal notice on the petition. The probe agency submitted that the petition is not maintainable and sought time to file response on the maintainability.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Kejriwal and contended that one of the issues raised in the plea is whether a political party is covered under the PMLA as the same is not defined under the enactment.

The court orally asked Singhvi as to why don't Kejriwal appear in response to the summons. To this, Singhvi submitted that Kejriwal is not running away and will appear, provided he is granted protection and a “no coercive steps” order in his favour.

“In the 10 summons and 11 replies filed by me… the elections are round the corner. You don't tell me whether I am being called as an accused or a suspect or witness. I will appear and answer all the questionnaire but I need protection,” Singhvi said.

The bench then said that if Kejriwal attends to the summons, then only he will come to know whether he is being called as an accused or a witness.

“Protection is required. I am not running away. I will come myself but I need protection and no coercive steps,” Singhvi responded.

To this, Justice Kait remarked: “What is preventing you not to attend the call? Normally the practice is… we have also done a number of cases. They (ED) don't arrest on the first or second day. When there are grounds, they record reasons and thereafter they do it…”

Singhvi then gave examples of arrest of other Aam Aadmi Party leaders, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh in the case.

“They come home and arrest. In Manish Sisodia, they call him, on the call he goes and they arrested,” he said.

He added: “I am not a common criminal…Where can I run? Can anyone have roots in the society more than me?”

He further said that Kejriwal will appear but he needs protection and no coercive steps order.

Apart from challenging the summons, Kejriwal's plea seeks to declare Section (2) (s) of PMLA as unconstitutional and arbitrary insofar that it is construed to include a political party within its ambit and sweep.

“Enforcement Directorate ('ED') cannot proceed on an assumption that a 'political party' would be covered under the expression 'artificial juridical person' occurring in Section 2(1)(s) in PMLA and, therefore, the issuance of summons in terms of Section 50 thereof to the office bearers of political party are non-est, blatantly illegal, arbitrary and cannot sustain the test of law or reasonableness,” the plea states.

About the Controversy

ED had filed two criminal complaints against Kejriwal in city's Rouse Avenue Courts alleging non compliance of the summons by him. So far, nine summons have been issued to the Chief Minister by the central probe agency.

Last week, Kejriwal appeared before the ACMM court and was granted bail, subjecting to him furnishing bail bond to the sum of Rs 15,000 and a surety of like amount. That matter has been listed for hearing on April 01.

ED, in its complaints, alleged that Kejriwal failed to comply with the summons issued to him.

Kejriwal has skipped the summons, claiming that they are illegal. However, he informed ED recently that he could be questioned via a videoconferencing link after March 12.

Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh have been arrested in the money laundering 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 Group of Ministers (GoM).

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: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT