Attempt to disintegrate AAP before polls,’ says Delhi CM; HC reserves verdict

The Delhi High Court was informed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday that Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently under arrest in connection with a money laundering case related to an alleged excise scam, cannot claim “immunity” from arrest due to the impending elections, as the law applies equally to him and an “ordinary person”.

Kejriwal, who is the national convener of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and is currently in judicial custody, questioned the “timing” of his arrest by the agency, stating that it contravenes the basic structure of the Constitution, including principles of democracy, free and fair elections, and a level playing field. He alleged that his arrest was a deliberate attempt to disintegrate AAP before the Lok Sabha elections.

His senior counsel alleged that the agency was “attempting to orchestrate” a “fixed match” and that the arrest was based on unsupported statements of co-accused individuals who have turned approvers.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has deferred the verdict on Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest and subsequent remand to the ED in the case, after hearing both sides extensively.

The case relates to alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22, which was later rescinded.

Kejriwal’s legal representative, Abhishek Singhvi, asserted that there was no justification for the AAP politician’s arrest over a year and a half after the ED initiated its probe in August 2022. Singhvi also criticised the agency for allegedly suppressing exculpatory evidence and adopting a biassed approach.

In response, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, refuted claims of bias, stressing that the investigation commenced before any elections and the arrest was conducted in accordance with the law.

Raju argued that witness statements and evidence support the existence of a prima facie case of money laundering against Kejriwal, as determined by the trial court, which has also denied bail to several co-accused on similar grounds.

He emphasised that politicians cannot claim immunity from arrest based on election schedules, likening economic crimes to severe offences and asserting the principle of equality before the law.

Singhvi objected to Raju’s analogy, arguing that it was unfair to equate Kejriwal’s situation with criminal offences.

Raju further contended that Kejriwal’s petition essentially sought bail and that by not contesting further custody, Kejriwal waived his right to challenge it.

The ED’s response alleges Kejriwal’s central role in the excise scam and his involvement in using illicit funds for AAP’s election campaign in Goa.

The agency maintains that Kejriwal demanded kickbacks from the South Group in exchange for favourable treatment in the Excise Policy 2021-22 and asserts that his actions amount to money laundering.