Arvind Kejriwal's Challenge To ED Arrest : Live Updates From Delhi High Court Hearing

Singhvi: Apart from the fact that your necessity to arrest is occasioned by completely ulterior motives, there's an old saying that if I'm, I can do anything.

The test is not can arrest. It is demonstrate the necessity to arrest. The should arrest test. The necessity to arrest immediately before elections...the only object is to insult, humiliate and disable. 

Singhvi: You made the test of arrest correspondingly higher and more difficult. The threshold of arrest is not a casual threshold. You added specifically in sectioj 19 the necessity to arrest test.

Singhvi: Next is the necessity or urgency to arrest.

Singhvi refers to Pankaj Bansal judgment. 

Singhvi: My third point is my not responding to summons is a nice point of prejudice. It is a red herring.

Singhvi refers to Vijay Madanlal judgment of the Supreme Court.

Singhvi: 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.

Singhvi: Between these dates, six months or so passed, you're clearly doing an arrest without any inquiry, statement, material etc which can form the basis of arrest. It's unique that there is no section 50 at all.

Singhvi: There is zero section 19 (PMLA) material.

Singhvi: The ninth summons in 16 March.

Singhvi: My second point is of no material in any manner supporting under section 50 of pmla. The date of first summons is 30 October 2023.

Singhvi: The timing reeks of basic structure issue, free and fair election issue and democracy issue. What is this urgency or necessity?

I am not talking politics. I'm talking law. 

Singhvi: So that the petitioner is unable to participate in the election process and to try to demolish the party before the first vote is cast.