The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case, as well as the remand order passed by the trial court sending him to ED custody. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the verdict after hearing extensive arguments on April 3.
Kejriwal was apprehended by the ED on March 21 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021. He was initially remanded to ED custody till March 28 by Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court. Subsequently, he moved the High Court contesting his arrest and remand.
In his plea, Kejriwal alleged that the Central government, specifically through the ED, was exploiting the PMLA to manipulate the electoral landscape ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. He accused the government of favoring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) by targeting him.
The ASG representing the ED, SV Raju, vehemently defended Kejriwal’s arrest, arguing that being a Chief Minister did not exempt him from legal proceedings if he committed a crime. He employed analogies to emphasize his point, comparing Kejriwal’s situation to that of a terrorist seeking immunity to contest elections after committing heinous acts.
Raju further emphasized that the veracity of witness statements, which formed the basis of Kejriwal’s arrest, should be determined during the trial. He suggested that Kejriwal’s personal involvement might not be crucial, as his position of responsibility within the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) made him liable for alleged money laundering activities benefiting the party.
Responding to Raju’s arguments, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, challenged the comparisons drawn by the ASG and disputed the relevance of Kejriwal’s alleged involvement. Singhvi questioned the applicability of the PMLA in the absence of concrete evidence linking Kejriwal to money laundering activities.
Singhvi also contested the assertion that Kejriwal’s awareness of any conspiracy implied his guilt under the PMLA, labeling it as an inversion of legal principles. He emphasized the need for substantial evidence to implicate Kejriwal directly in any wrongdoing.
The courtroom exchange between the parties showcased a clash over legal interpretations and the application of the PMLA to Kejriwal’s case. While the ED argued for a broad interpretation of liability based on organizational responsibility, Kejriwal’s defense sought to narrow the scope of his involvement and the applicability of the PMLA.
The dismissal of Kejriwal’s plea signifies a legal setback for the Chief Minister, underscoring the complexities of his legal battle against the ED’s allegations of money laundering.
This report highlights the legal arguments presented by both parties and the subsequent decision of the Delhi High Court, elucidating the intricacies of the case and its implications for Kejriwal and the political landscape in India.