No Relief For Arvind Kejriwal As Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict In Plea Against Arrest

The Delhi High Court reserved verdict on petition moved by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the ED on allegations of money laundering in connection to Delhi Liquor Policy case.

The court today witnessed many fiery exchanges between Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and ASG SV Raju

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved verdict on petition moved by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on allegations of money laundering in connection to the now scrapped Delhi Liquor Policy case. The verdict is likely to come out tomorrow. The court concluded hearing counsels from both sides. The court today witnessed many fiery exchanges between Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Kejriwal and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for ED.

At the outset, ASG Raju said he was not served with proper documents by Singhvi and thus he can't argue. However, Singhvi called this a mere rouse and an attempt to seek another adjournment and said ASG was provided with the copy on mail. Many amusing arguements were made in court today. One such was by ED, that can a terrorist-politician who blows an Army vehicle, say he wants bail because he wants to stand in elections? ASG Raju cited heinous crimes to argue against release of Delhi CM. Singhvi in his rejoinder called these bizarre analogies. The court saw both counsels locking horns several time over the question of law.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi Calls Arvind Kejriwal's Arrest An Attempt To Demolish AAP 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi began his arguments in court and said that the arrest was driven by an agenda to humiliate  Arvind Kejriwal and demolish the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) even before the first vote is cast in the upcoming elections. Singhvi emphasised on the importance of case in terms of a "level playing field."

He said that the arrest after MCC is to disable, humiliate AAP and Kejriwal. "It is part of free and fair elections which is part of democracy and basic structure. The case reeks of timing issues. They are trying to disintegrate and demolish his party before the first vote is cast...your first summon on 30 th October, 2023 and arrest now?"

Singhvi asked "what is the urgency? He also cited 'Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case' to supplement his case.He further told the court that "no material in any manner supporting summons under Section 50 has been there...Which implies that there is no section 19 material."

"You are doing an arrest without any enquiry material with you," Singhvi said.Singhvi further told the court that Kejriwal not responding to summons is a red herring. He said Kejriwal "responded in writing everytime. You did not have any questionnaire, no VC, and this cannot be a basis for causing prejudice.

"Singhvi also cited the Pankaj Bansal case as well. He argued that if Section 45 of PMLA made bail difficult, it also made arrest difficult."Your arrest has ulterior motives. Power of arrest you have...the test is not "arrest." it is the ability to arrest," Singhvi said.

On claims by the ED over "non-cooperation" by Kejriwal, Singhvi said that admission of guilt and arrest are not "cooperation."

He also pointed out the "Extraordinary point" made by ED: "That because the accused himself said that he had no objection to judicial custody in trial court, he has lost right? Is this a civil case? How can they make such an argument? "

He accused ED of concealing statements recorded in favour of Kejriwal. Singhvi said that in criminal law, it's a fraud by the prosecutor to conceal documents that have exculpatory statements of approvers.

He said that the ED kept recording statements till the approver did not name Kejriwal. He further said that Section 70 cannot arise at all. It is applicable to a company. AAP is a political party under different statute."In a desperate stretch, the ED argues on Section 70." Singhvi said.

Calling it a case of "vicarious liability," Singhvi said that even for a company, they have to prove Kejriwal's role in personal capacity. After Singhvi concluded his arguments, Advocate Amit Desai said he wanted to make a supplementary arguement.

ASG SV Raju objected by saying that just because you are powerful, you can't have three lawyers."You may be powerful..you claim to be a Aam Admi and afford such big lawyers." ASG Raju jibed at Kejriwal.

ED Counters Kejriwal's Plea On Technical Grounds, Says Proceeds Of Crime Irrelevant

ASG SV Raju began his arguement by saying that Singhvi has argued a writ plea like a bail plea and his arguements are not relevant at this stage. Most of the arguments have been made as if chargesheets have been filed, he said.

"There is some property which is already provisionally attached. Proceedings are going on, RS. 126 crores. We are wanting to attach properties of AAP. If we attach, allegations will be made that allegations ke time aise Kiya. Fortunately for us, we are at the stage of investigation. Investigation is not over, it is at a nascent stage..." ASG SV Raju said.

He said that even if this court rules in his favour, Kejriwal cannot be released today as he has not challenged the April 1 order that sent him in Judicial custody. Unless you challenge the subsequent orders, it cannot be said to be illegal.

"Kejriwal has challenged the first remand order whereas his current judicial custody is based on the April 1 order," he said.  

He further argued that finding of the actual proceeds of crime is irrelevant if we make out a case that you were involved in money laundering. "The argument is that the ED could not find from my home. But, if you have given it someone, how will ED find? He is actually involved and he is vicariously involved." ASG Raju asserted in high court.

ASG Raju said that Kejriwal's arguments says that an Aam Aadmi (common man) has to go behind bars, but I am the chief minister, I can't go to jail. "Therefore, I'll loot the country, make money, take kickbacks but don't touch me. Why? Because it's before elections, basic structure is violated. What kind of basic structure is this!" ASG Raju remarked.

"Take the case of a terrorist who is a politician who has blown up an army vehicle. But he says I've to stand in the elections, you can't touch me. What kind of an argument is this?" ED counsel said on Singhvi's arguement on level playing in elections.

He further said that a large number of accused have been refused bail by trial court, this court and the Supreme Court in this case. "In a money laundering case, one reason to reject bail is prima facie opinion of money laundering against the accused. Please look at section 45 of PMLA in this context."

He argued that AAP is liable under Section 70 as it is an "association of individuals." He said company is not only a private limited company, but also an "association of people." He read out the definition of "political party,".

ASG Raju also said that Sanjay Singh's bail was allowed by the ED, and the court granted bail.

Singhvi said that my petition is challenge to illegal arrest under Section 19 of PMLA. Singhvi said that paragraph 14 of Pankaj Bansal case that it wont apply here.

He said the validity of remand order is challenged. It appears that ED did not learnt from Pankaj Bansal judgement by Supreme Court. He said just last week the Supreme Court rejected the review plea by ED in Pankaj Bansal case.

Singhvi said, I am surprised how cognisance is being related to arrest two years after. Irrespective, I have not challenged cognisance. I have challenged arrest.

After hearing both sides the court reserved verdict.