Delhi HC Judgment Against Arvind Kejriwal Based On An Unrelied Document Suppressed From Him: Singhvi Tells Supreme Court
The Delhi High Court's judgment dismissing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi liquor policy case was based on an "unrelied document which was suppressed" from him, said Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the Supreme Court today.Mentioning the petition before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud...
The Delhi High Court's judgment dismissing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi liquor policy case was based on an "unrelied document which was suppressed" from him, said Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the Supreme Court today.
Mentioning the petition before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for urgent listing, Singhvi said, "I have sent an email for urgent listing...the order passed is based on an unrelied document which is suppressed from us".
CJI said that he would immediately look into the request and do the needful. However, the CJI did not specify any date for posting,
The plea is filed against a judgment pronounced yesterday by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, upholding Kejriwal's arrest and subsequent remand.
In the judgment, the High Court observed: "Material collected by ED reveals that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in the formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. He is also allegedly involved in a personal capacity in the formulation of policy and demanding kickbacks and secondly in the capacity of national convenor of AAP".
After hearing the parties and going through the record, the High Court judge came to the conclusion that ED was able to place enough material on record, including statements of approvers and AAP's own candidate, to indicate that Kejriwal was given money for Goa elections.
It further held that Section 70 PMLA (which penalizes offences by companies) was attracted in the case. This section provides that when a company contravenes PMLA, every person who at the time of the contravention was in charge of conduct of business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty.
Insofar as Kejriwal disputed approvers' statements, Justice Sharma discounted allegations of leveraging saying that the statements were recorded by Courts and not the probe agency.
To recap, the Delhi CM was arrested in the case on March 21, following denial of interim protection by the Delhi High Court. He moved the Supreme Court on the night of his arrest itself, however, this petition was withdrawn the next day as it was clashing with ED's application for remand before the Trial Court. Sr Adv Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on behalf of Kejriwal, had mentioned to a Justice Sanjiv Khanna-led Bench at the time that Kejriwal would fight the remand and come back.
Following the arrest, although the remand was resisted, the AAP chief remained in custody. At first, on March 22, the Trial Court remanded him to 6 days' ED custody. Later, the same was extended by 4 days. On April 1, he was remanded to judicial custody till April 15.
ED alleges that Kejriwal was the kingpin and key conspirator of the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam and there were reasons to believe on the basis of material in its possession that he was guilty of the offence of money laundering.
AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are also accused in the case. While Sisodia continues to remain in jail, Singh was recently granted bail by the Supreme Court pursuant to a concession given by the ED.