Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Challenging ED Arrest In Liquor Policy Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved verdict on the plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.

Kejriwal is currently in judicial custody. He was arrested on the night of March 21. On March 22, the trial court remanded him to six days of ED custody, which was extended by further four days. On April 01, he was remanded to judicial custody till April 15.

Earlier, Justice Sharma had denied any interim relief to Kejriwal and only issued notice on his plea challenging the arrest, as well as his interim application seeking immediate release.

In its response to the petition, ED has said that Kejriwal is the kingpin and the key conspirator of the excise 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.

ED has also alleged that the Aam Aadmi party was the “major beneficiary” of the proceeds of the crime and has committed the offence through Kejriwal.

“The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the Delhi Liquor Scam. Sh Arvind Kejriwal was and is not only the brain behind the AAP but also controls its major activities, he was also one of the founding members and was also involved in the decision making of the policy as evident from the statements of the witnesses,” the response said.

Arguments

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told the Court that investigation qua the sitting CM is at a nascent stage. He also pointed that Kejriwal has not challenged the latest order remanding him to 15 days judicial custody. "He has challenged the first remand order. Please look at the remand order of 26 March. Today we are on April 3. On 28 March, second remand order is passed. That has not been challenged. Third remand order of judicial custody has not been challenged. So today his custody isn't pursuant to arrest or first remand order, it's pursuant to April 1 order which has not been challenged."

Raju also wondered if Kejriwal can challenge his remand since he did not oppose it. "He voluntarily accepts please remand me further. Can he challenge the remand order? Or is it barred by waiver? They are blowing hot and cold at the same time. You cant challenge the remand order and say please pass the order and accept it. They have not challenged the latest orders pursuant to which he is in custody. Thus, custody can't be said to be illegal."

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kejriwal argued that the central probe agency did not comply with Section 50 PMLA which empowers it to issue summons, collect evidence, etc. "It is clear that section 50 involves an inquiry. Because it's inquiry which enables ED to make up mind about arrest and prosecution. No attempt is made to record my section 50 even at my residence," he argued.

Pointing to the remand application he added ED wants to "find out" the role of Chief Minister. "Surely that's not a ground for today's arrest...There has to be specific role of the petitioner, even for the company, which I'm denying."

On the other hand, the ASG argued "The fact that a PMLA offence has taken place is clear and beyond any doubt. Because as far as first Police Custody and subsequent Police Custody is concerned, court has taken cognizance...Categorical finding that there is money laundering. Cognizance of the offence of money laundering. Nobody has challenged the order."

Singhvi contended that ED forced the approvers Raghav Magunta, Sarath Reddy and Magunta Reddy to make statements against Kejriwal. He further alleged that two approvers even have links with the ruling party.

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.

Following his arrest, Kejriwal had promptly moved an urgent petition before the Supreme Court challenging his arrest. However, the same was withdrawn later.

Moreover, he has previously moved the Delhi High Court (division bench) challenging the summons issued to him by the central probe agency. He has also filed an application seeking interim protection. The matter is fixed for hearing on April 22.

Kejriwal has skipped the summons, claiming that they are illegal.

ED has alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the "kingpin" of Delhi excise scam and is directly involved in the use of proceeds of crime accounting to over Rs. 100 crores.

It is ED's case 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.

Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT