Arvind Kejriwal’s Interim Relief Denied by Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court today issued a notice on a plea of interim relief by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, however, declined to grant any interim relief to the sitting CM and issued a notice on his application seeking immediate release. This decision came after Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, stated that Kejriwal’s counsel had not provided the agency with a copy of the petition. Raju mentioned that the petition was submitted at the last moment, and the ED needed time to file a detailed response.
Justice Sharma remarked, “Any order passed in the application for interim release of petitioner [Kejriwal], pending disposal of his main petition without calling for reply of ED, at this stage, would rather amount to deciding the main petition itself.“ The petition was filed on Saturday, but according to the ED, they received a copy only yesterday.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the main challenge was against the remand itself and insisted that the matter did not necessitate any replies from the ED. He also mentioned that it was not feasible to serve a copy of the petition earlier due to the closure of the Registry on Saturday. Following this, Justice Sharma indicated that she would issue a notice on the main petition and decide on the plea for interim relief.
Kejriwal’s remand is set to end tomorrow, and he is scheduled to appear before the Rouse Avenue Courts in the city.
While refusing interim relief, the Court stated that it would need to decide on the issues raised in the main petition before determining whether Kejriwal is entitled to immediate release.
Justice Sharma emphasized the importance of hearing both sides fairly and adhering to the principles of natural justice. She stated, “The reply by the Directorate of Enforcement is essential and crucial to decide the present case, and therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that no reply is required to be filed on behalf of the respondent is rejected.” The judge also added that the ED might possess additional material collected during Kejriwal’s custodial interrogation, which could be vital to the case.
Moreover, the Court clarified that any order for release would be akin to granting bail or interim bail, and the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot substitute the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC.
Arguments
Singhvi highlighted a previous case, Vijay Madanlal’s case, where it was established that Section 50 of the PMLA was fundamental for inquiry, focusing on the proceeds of crime. He pointed out that in this instance, no Section 50 PMLA statement was recorded against Kejriwal, and the motive behind the arrest was not related to the PMLA but to influence the upcoming general elections.
Singhvi argued that the arrest did not follow the conditions stipulated under Section 19 PMLA, including “material in possession,” “reason to believe,” and “guilt.” He asserted that there was no need to arrest Kejriwal as the agency was unaware of his involvement in the alleged scam.
He further referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar, which outlined guidelines to curb unnecessary arrests. Singhvi contended that even if all material was considered at the preliminary stage, there must be evidence to justify the arrest, and mere statements could not be the sole basis.
Singhvi also criticized the ED’s frequent use of the term “non-cooperation,” stating that an accused cannot be forced to confess against himself, which would violate Articles 20 and 21.
He argued that Kejriwal’s arrest directly undermines the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly free and fair elections. Singhvi emphasized that arresting a sitting Chief Minister a week before general elections would compromise the democratic principle of ensuring a level playing field for elections.
Singhvi also suggested that the central probe agency coerced the approver into making a statement against Kejriwal. He described a process where an individual initially has no charges against them, but after several statements and pressure, they are arrested. Subsequently, they are granted bail, make a statement against Kejriwal, and then receive pardon.
Regarding the allegation that Kejriwal was involved in a liquor scam, Singhvi pointed out that the ED had quantified the proceeds of crime at 45 crores. However, he referenced a previous Supreme Court case involving Manish Sisodia, where a similar accusation was rejected, despite the amount and the accused being different.
Addressing the issue of Kejriwal’s vicarious liability concerning the allegations against his political party, Singhvi argued that Section 70 of the PMLA is applicable to companies, and the language does not cover political parties. He stressed that political parties are addressed under the Representation of People Act, and the definition of a political party cannot be merged with the RP Act without explicitly naming political parties in the PMLA.
Background
Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 and was remanded to ED custody until March 28 by the trial court.
Earlier, he had moved the Delhi High Court challenging the summons issued by the ED and had filed an application seeking interim protection. The matter is scheduled for a hearing on April 22.
Previously, the ED had filed two criminal complaints against Kejriwal in the Rouse Avenue Courts, alleging non-compliance with the summons. Kejriwal had skipped the summons, claiming they were unlawful.
The ED alleges that the excise policy was part of a conspiracy to provide a 12 percent profit to certain private companies, even though such a stipulation was not mentioned in the Group of Ministers’ meeting minutes. Kejriwal is accused of being the “kingpin,” according to the ED.
The agency also claims that there was a coordinated conspiracy orchestrated by Vijay Nair and others, including South Group, to provide extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers. Nair allegedly acted on behalf of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, according to the ED.
Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Click here to read the judgement.
If you wish to have your News, Articles, Deals, Columns, or Press Releases showcased on The Courtroom, we kindly invite you to complete the form available through the provided link.
Arvind Kejriwal Denied Urgent Hearing by Delhi High Court Over ED Custody on March 23
