NEW DELHI: Delhi high court on Tuesday dismissed chief minister Arvind Kejriwal‘s plea against the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) arrest and subsequent remand to the central agency.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held ED’s arrest of CM Arvind Kejriwal valid and observed that the AAP convenor “conspired” and was actively involved in the “use and concealment of proceeds of crime“.
Here’s what the court said while dismissing Kejriwal’s plea:
On legality of arrest:
Delhi high court observed that material collected by the ED reveals Arvind Kejriwal conspired and was actively involved in the use and concealment of proceeds of crime. The court said that the central agency case also reveals that Kejriwal was involved in his personal capacity as well as convenor of AAP.
The bench observed that Kejriwal involved in the formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. He is also allegedly involved in demanding kickbacks.
The court said ED was able to place enough material. The beach noted that it had gone through the statement which completes the chain and shows that money was sent to Goa elections.
On approver’s statement
The court said that in the current case, among several statements, the statements of Raghav Magunta and Sarath Reddy are approver statements which were recorded under PMLA as well as Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, to cast doubt on the manner of the approver’s statement would amount to casting aspersions on the Court and judge.
The bench observed that the law of approver is over 100 years old and cannot be suggested that it was enacted to implicate Arvind Kejriwal.
Justice Sharma observed that ED was in possession of enough material which led to Kejriwla’s arrest. Skipping probe by Kejriwal, the delay caused by him also impacted those in judicial custody.
On timing of Kejriwal’s arrest
On the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, the court observed that Delhi CM was arrested in the money laundering case, and the court had to examine his arrest and remand as per law irrespective of the timing of the elections.
Court said Kejriwal’s challenge to the timing of arrest before the national polls, in the absence of any mala fide intent on the part of the ED, is not sustainable. The high court said that Kejriwal would have known that Lok Sabha elections would be declared.
Kejriwal’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Sighnvi had argued that the Delhi CM was arrested by ED to disrupt his political campaign ahead of the polls.
On electoral bonds:
On AAP’s charges that an approver had donated to the BJP through electoral bonds and another joined the party which happens to be a BJP ally, the bench said it was not the court’s concern on who gave a ticket for contesting election and who purchased the electoral bond.
The court also said the investigating agency under criminal jurisprudence can’t be directed to conduct a probe at the convenience of a person. However, the court said Kejriwal will have the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
Justice Sharma observed that political considerations cannot be brought before the court “as they are not relevant”.
She said the present case is not a case between the central government and Kejriwal but between Kejriwal and the ED.
There cannot be ‘specific privilege’
On the contention that the Delhi CM could have been questioned through the video conferencing is to be rejected, the court said it is “not for the accused to decide how the investigation is to be done”.
It observed that it cannot be as per the convenience of the accused.
“This court won’t set two sets of laws- One for the commons and the other for the public servants. There cannot be any specific privilege for anyone including the chief minister”, said Delhi high court
The court must remain vigilant that it is not influenced by any extraneous factors. We are concerned with constitutional morality, not political morality, she said.
Kejriwal was sent to judicial custody in the case on April 1 after he was produced in Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court on the expiry of ED’s custody. The ED arrested Arvind Kejriwal on March 21 in the alleged money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held ED’s arrest of CM Arvind Kejriwal valid and observed that the AAP convenor “conspired” and was actively involved in the “use and concealment of proceeds of crime“.
Here’s what the court said while dismissing Kejriwal’s plea:
On legality of arrest:
Delhi high court observed that material collected by the ED reveals Arvind Kejriwal conspired and was actively involved in the use and concealment of proceeds of crime. The court said that the central agency case also reveals that Kejriwal was involved in his personal capacity as well as convenor of AAP.
The bench observed that Kejriwal involved in the formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. He is also allegedly involved in demanding kickbacks.
The court said ED was able to place enough material. The beach noted that it had gone through the statement which completes the chain and shows that money was sent to Goa elections.
On approver’s statement
The court said that in the current case, among several statements, the statements of Raghav Magunta and Sarath Reddy are approver statements which were recorded under PMLA as well as Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, to cast doubt on the manner of the approver’s statement would amount to casting aspersions on the Court and judge.
The bench observed that the law of approver is over 100 years old and cannot be suggested that it was enacted to implicate Arvind Kejriwal.
Justice Sharma observed that ED was in possession of enough material which led to Kejriwla’s arrest. Skipping probe by Kejriwal, the delay caused by him also impacted those in judicial custody.
On timing of Kejriwal’s arrest
On the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, the court observed that Delhi CM was arrested in the money laundering case, and the court had to examine his arrest and remand as per law irrespective of the timing of the elections.
Court said Kejriwal’s challenge to the timing of arrest before the national polls, in the absence of any mala fide intent on the part of the ED, is not sustainable. The high court said that Kejriwal would have known that Lok Sabha elections would be declared.
Kejriwal’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Sighnvi had argued that the Delhi CM was arrested by ED to disrupt his political campaign ahead of the polls.
On electoral bonds:
On AAP’s charges that an approver had donated to the BJP through electoral bonds and another joined the party which happens to be a BJP ally, the bench said it was not the court’s concern on who gave a ticket for contesting election and who purchased the electoral bond.
The court also said the investigating agency under criminal jurisprudence can’t be directed to conduct a probe at the convenience of a person. However, the court said Kejriwal will have the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
Justice Sharma observed that political considerations cannot be brought before the court “as they are not relevant”.
She said the present case is not a case between the central government and Kejriwal but between Kejriwal and the ED.
There cannot be ‘specific privilege’
On the contention that the Delhi CM could have been questioned through the video conferencing is to be rejected, the court said it is “not for the accused to decide how the investigation is to be done”.
It observed that it cannot be as per the convenience of the accused.
“This court won’t set two sets of laws- One for the commons and the other for the public servants. There cannot be any specific privilege for anyone including the chief minister”, said Delhi high court
The court must remain vigilant that it is not influenced by any extraneous factors. We are concerned with constitutional morality, not political morality, she said.
Kejriwal was sent to judicial custody in the case on April 1 after he was produced in Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court on the expiry of ED’s custody. The ED arrested Arvind Kejriwal on March 21 in the alleged money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy.