Delhi High Court Dismisses Arvind Kejriwal’s Petition Challenging Arrest in Excise Policy Case

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal faced a major setback on a petition challenging his arrest in the excise policy case. On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed his plea that circled around his apprehension on March 21 in connection with the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering probe as well as the subsequent remand order of March 22.

The court asserted that the ED traced ample material in the statement of the approver, Hawala dealer, Aam Aadmi Party candidate, in the Goa election. Therefore, the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal and his remand cannot be termed as ‘illegal’.

For those unaware, Hawala is an informal method that is used to transfer money without moving any physical cash. It takes place outside the traditional banking system and requires at least two Hawala dealers that manage the transaction.

Delhi CM argued in his petition that his arrest was a calculated move that was intended to humiliate him and sabotage AAP prospects before the first vote is cast in the Lok Sabha Elections. However, the ED contended that Aam Aadmi cannot escape apprehension simply because of his position as a chief minister. Additionally, the agency contended any connection between the arrests and the elections. They claimed that the probe into the case had been going on for months.

Last week, Justice Swarana Kant Sharma, sitting as a single bench, withheld its verdict on Kejriwal’s petition. This occurred on the same day that AAP leader Sanjay Singh was granted bail in the excise policy case, following six months of detention as per the orders of the Supreme Court.

Points Underscored By Kejriwal’s Advocate

Meanwhile, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, termed his arrest as blatant effort to stifle opposition using the Enforcement Directorate’s authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and to disrupt the electoral chances of AAP. He argued that the agency lacked substantial evidence to detain Kejriwal and that the Chief Minister was arrested without any preliminary inquiry, statement, or evidence.

While responding to ED’s claims that Kejriwal was liable for AAP’s offences, he professed that Section 70 of PMLA was being falsely used in this case and that it could not arise at all in this situation. “It’s a particular provision aimed at attributing vicarious liability to ‘companies.’ Given that AAP is registered under the Representation of People Act, a separate statute that acknowledges the party differently, it cannot be assimilated into the PMLA,” he stated.

Singhvi criticized the ED’s assertion that the chief minister forfeited his right to contest his arrest after stating in court that he had no objection to custody as “remarkable.” He further stated that the challenge against his arrest was lodged before his statements on March 28 and April 1 before the trial court.

Singhvi argued that the ED had misinterpreted the PMLA. “There is no evidence linking him [Kejriwal] to the money laundering offence. It is absurd to suggest that the Chief Minister of Delhi would engage in hawala transactions. I question how being aware of a conspiracy can constitute a valid basis for a charge under Section 3 of the PMLA. Simply being aware of a conspiracy doesn’t make you culpable under the PMLA,” he asserted.

Petition Filed By Arvind Kejriwal

On March 23, Kejriwal filed a petition with the high court, alleging that his arrest infringed upon his fundamental rights. The court, on March 27, merely issued a notice regarding his plea, stressing the necessity for a response from the ED to address the legal and validity issues raised.

In its affidavit submitted to the high court, the ED opposed Kejriwal’s petition, citing his statements made to a trial court — wherein he expressed no objection to a further extension of his remand.

Accusing Kejriwal of being the “kingpin and primary conspirator” of the Delhi excise policy scam, the ED alleged that he colluded with ministers of his cabinet and other AAP leaders in an attempt to implicate the party as the beneficiary of the purported crime in the guise of a “company.”

Also Read: Former DGP Braj Lal Criticizes Akhilesh Yadav, Says ‘You are the same Akhilesh Yadav who…’