The Supreme Court asked uncomfortable questions from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the timing of the arrest of Delhi CM Shri Arvind Kejriwal prior to the general elections, and sought a response from the investigating agency.
The Supreme Court's probing interrogation of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the arrest of Shri Arvind Kejriwal takes centre stage on Tuesday. Delving into the timing of the arrest, particularly its proximity to the General elections, the court questioned the ED about the gap between the onset of proceedings and the arrest. Emphasizing adherence to Section 8's 365-day limit for proceedings, the Apex Court underscores the paramount importance of safeguarding life and liberty, implying that arrest may not be justified in all cases. Additionally, the court champions the significance of liberty and calls upon the ED to provide clarity, questioning whether the burden of proving guilt should rest with the ED or with Shri Arvind Kejriwal to establish his innocence.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked ED's counsel Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to reply on the question of the timing and said, “Life and liberty are exceedingly important. You can’t deny that.”
The Supreme Court asks the ED to explain the following 5 points on the next date of hearing on Friday:
1. Explain the timing or arrest. Why was he arrested just before General elections?
2. Why is there a huge gap between initiation of the proceedings (registration of case) and arrest of Arvind Kejriwal? If you see Section 8, there is a limit of 365 days…The other option is to not arrest... Life and liberty is important.
3. Without there being adjudicatory proceeding, can you have criminal proceedings initiated in terms of what has been held in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India and Vijay Madanlal v. Union of India...there are no proceedings of attachment in this case so far, and if there are, then show how the petitioner is involved.
4. As far as the Manish Sisodia case is concerned, there are findings in favour and against... tell us where does the Kejriwal case lie then?
5. They think the threshold of Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which casts onus on prosecution and not on accused, is fairly high and thus asking for regular bail does not happen as they are confronted with Section 45 and onus shifts on them. So how do we interpret it? Do we make the threshold much higher and ensure that the standard is the same to find the person who is guilty?
Key submissions made by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shri Arvind Kejriwal’s counsel
Grounds of arrest of Shri Arvind Kejriwal based on statements made by other implicated persons. These statements indicate a pattern:
a). These persons were arrested,
b). They made multiple statements which did not c). implicate Shri Arvind Kejriwal,
c). The ED repeatedly objected to their bail
d). They made statements implicating Shri Arvind Kejriwal,
e). They were granted bail/pardon without the ED objecting.
All the statements where there is no allegation against Shri Arvind Kejriwal were deliberately ignored by the ED while perusing the material and forming “reason to believe” in his guilt.
a). Some of these statements do not even indicate the commission of money laundering or any predicate offence.
b). 90% of the evidence against Shri Arvind Kejriwal as shown in the Grounds of Arrest have come after the arrest of all these people, leading to a suspicion that arrest has been systematically used as a device to coerce statements against Shri Arvind Kejriwal.
With respect to (Wrt) Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy (MSR)
a). He initially stated that he had met Shri Kejriwal briefly regarding land in Delhi for a charitable organisation, and not in relation to the Delhi Excise Policy.
b). 5 months later, after his son Raghava Magunta was arrested, MSR was forced to make a statement against Shri Arvind Kejriwal in lieu of bail for his son.
c). He has now received a Lok Sabha election from BJP’s ally, TDP (was in YSRCP previously).
Wrt Raghava Magunta
a). Initially, he stated that he does not know any of the people implicated in the case.
b). He was arrested 5 months later. He made 4 statements where he did not implicate Shri Arvind Kejriwal. These statements have been concealed and suppressed by the ED.
c). He sought bail when his wife attempted suicide, but it was opposed by the ED. The application was withdrawn.
d). In his fifth statement, he made an allegation against Shri Arvind Kejriwal and then was granted bail shortly afterwards. His bail was confirmed by the HC as ED did not object to it.
Observation of the court:
The issue is whether the Grounds of arrest must include all facts including those that are exculpatory. And if a particular statement is relied upon, should ED also take into account any earlier statement that was contradictory?
ED said that the Grounds of Arrest already runs into hundreds of pages. Dr Singhvi submitted that this cannot be the reason for not stating the reason why certain statements (inculpatory) were relied upon by ED while others (exculpatory) were ignored by the ED.
Wrt Sarath Reddy
a). In two statements, he denied allegations of transferring any money and did not implicate Shri Arvind Kejriwal. These 2 statements were concealed.
b). He was arrested on 10.11.2022.
After his arrest, in 9 statements, he did not make a single allegation against Shri Arvind Kejriwal till 25.12.2022. These 9 statements were also concealed and suppressed. ED can say these statements exist but state the reasons why it does not believe those statements, but it cannot wish them away.
c). His application for bail on account of his wife’s cancer treatment was objected to by ED.
d). He was coerced to give a statement (much improved and contradictory) against Shri Arvind Kejriwal, after which ED posed no objection to his bail on grounds that he was suffering from back pain. The same ED ferociously opposed bail for those undergoing surgery.
e). In his statement, no specific allegation against Shri Arvind Kejriwal, at best an innuendo. No evidence indicated against him.
f). Records also show that he purchased electoral bonds worth ₹60 crore to BJP.
Wrt Butchi Babu
a). His statement is complete hearsay, without any evidence.
b). Made the statement in CBI custody, so as to avoid ED arrest.
c). The Only person from the entire “South group” who was not arrested by ED.
Wrt C. Arvind
a). Statement made: Shri Manish Sisodia gave him a document, which was the base document for GoM report, at CM residence in the presence of CM and Shri Satyendar Jain.
b). Ministers keep receiving files from officers – what does it have to do with section 3 of PMLA?
c). How does this amount to an offense under Section 3 of PMLA?
2. Grounds of arrest show that Shri Arvind Kejriwal and Vijay Nair have been treated as alter egos. Vijay Nair was arrested in November 2022, but Shri Arvind Kejriwal was not arrested until March 2024.
Wrt Goa candidate:
Grounds of arrest mentions that one candidate of AAP for Goa elections had received expenses in cash from an AAP volunteer in Goa. Without any specific details or any specific allegations, this statement does not make out a case against the National Convenor of the Party. There is no detail, no co-relation, no-involvement of Shri Arvind Kejriwal shown in the statement.