The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will pronounce an order at 4 PM on the petition moved by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal against his arrest and remand by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. While arguing in court, Kejriwal's lawyer said that his arrest by the ED was illegal and violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
Kejriwal's lawyers pressed for immediate release, however the ED kept asking for more time to file a reply. After hearing both sides, the high court said it will issue notice in the case and upload order on the required time frame for filing reply in the petition at 4 PM.
In the morning, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard Kejriwal's plea briefly and said that she was inclined to issue notice, however, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kejriwal said he would respectfully oppose it and said that the ED is adopting delaying tactics. He said the petition requires immediate relief as it is filed against the six-day remand that ends tomorrow (March 28.)
After hearing Singhvi's prayers, Justice Sharma said that she will issue notice on the main writ petition and give a very short date. But she will hear the prayer for interim relief IA for Kejriwal's release today. Kejriwal had filed two petitions in the court, one against the arrest and remand and another for interim relief for release from custody till the time the main matter is completed.
Following are the main arguments made by Kejriwal's lawyer in the high court today.
No Statement Recorded Under Section 50 Of PMLA
Senior Advocate Singhvi contended that although this is a matter in the realm of criminal law, this actually is a vital matter because it impinges directly on the basic structure of the Constitution. He further said that Kejriwal's arrest after the Model Code of Conduct was announced is intended to disable him and his party from any active role in the upcoming elections.
Singhvi argued that no Section 50 PMLA statement has been recorded. And the arrest occurred without the statement.
"Your lordships have said that the statement is in the nature of inquiry. It's on the basis of the material collected in the inquiry and mind applied to the material you go for arrest." Singhvi argued. He prayed the high court to release Kejriwal today as interim relief.
Singhvi while arguing over ED's charge of non-cooperation on Kejriwal, asked the court what is it that the ED could not have done without arresting a sitting Chief Minister at the cusp of elections after MCC has been declared.
He further said that if Kejriwal had to tamper any evidence he has so far had ample opportunity and the ED is already in possesion of potential evidence. So, the question of tampering does not arise.
"Jaichands and Trojan Horses": Reliability Of Statements Made By Approvers
Singhvi also cited the statements of approvers in the case and drew attention of the court to the "bail business system" in which one gets bail after becoming approver.
"Now come to the statement of the father because the son is tortured...statement of Raghav Magunta's father...The father gives a statement and the son gets bail. What is the point of such a statement?" Singhvi argues.
He also refers to the statement of Sarath Reddy (allegedly part of the South Group).
"This is a chap who gets back pain and gets bail. There are n number of cases where spinal surgery was viciously opposed by the ED." Singhvi tells court while referring to Satyendar Jain's bail plea.
Singhvi further rebuked statements made by other two approvers Bucchi Babu and C Arvind. He went on to compare approvers to
"Jaichands and trojan horses" who must prove their authenticity on their own. Citing previous court judgments, Singhvi said "it's easy to extract incrimination out of statements of co accused. Therefore very less weight must be given, Unless you've clear corroboration."
On Proceeds Of Crimes
Singhvi said that the whole case is that ED wants Kejriwal to find out more about the proceeds of crime. The proceeds of crime flow is quantified by ED to be 45 crores. The same amount for the same accusation in the same liquor scam was dealt with and rejected in the Manish Sisodia case by the Supreme Court.
"Amount is the same, the quantification is the same. The name of the accused being different makes no difference," Singhvi argued.
ED's Reply To Arguements By Singhvi
When the hearing started in the morning, ASG SV Raju appearing for ED urged the high court to give the central agency some time to file a reply to the "bulky" petitions filed by Kejriwal. The ASG claimed that they have been asking for a copy, but they only got a copy the day before.
Singhvi however blamed the delay on the defects in the petition and Holi break. He further said that ED is employing delaying tactics in the case.
After Singhvi concluded his arguements, ASG Raju again said he needed time to file reply. "Arguements went on for two hours, I need time to study the petition and arguements."
The court then said the order shall be uploaded by 4 PM.
The Delhi CM has moved the high court calling his arrest and remand illegal. He has contended that he is entitled to be released immediately.
The ED arrested Kejriwal on March 21. On last Friday, the trial court in Delhi remanded him to six day ED custody till March 28.
Kejriwal, who was sent into six day remand by a trial court last week, had moved the Delhi High Court on March 24 seeking an urgent hearing into the matter by the high court. However, the matter was posted for hearing after the Holi Break.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief was arrested by ED on Thursday and was remanded to a six-day custody on Friday by Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court.