HC denies interim relief to Kejriwal, to hear plea on Apr 3 after ED’s response

The Delhi High Court declined to provide immediate relief to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday. Kejriwal, who was detained by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case tied to an alleged excise policy fraud, was denied interim relief as the court stated that the case presents significant issues that cannot be hastily resolved without considering the ED’s position.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued a notice regarding Kejriwal’s plea, which disputes his arrest and the subsequent remand to the ED. The court has requested the ED to submit its response, including on the matter of interim relief, by April 2. The judge declared that the case would be considered for final resolution on April 3, and no postponements would be permitted.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the arrest was based on the “unsubstantiated” statements of two co-accused, whom he referred to as “Jaichands and Trojan horses” due to their perceived “betrayal”. He contended that the principles of democracy, basic structure, and level playing field are at stake, and even an hour in custody is excessively long if the arrest is unlawful. He further alleged that Kejriwal’s arrest, which occurred just prior to the Lok Sabha elections, was intended to “disable” him and his party.

However, the court dismissed Singhvi’s argument that the respondent is not required to file a response. The court deemed it appropriate to issue a notice of the main writ petition as well as the application for interim relief, with a return date of April 3, 2024. The court ordered the ED to ensure that responses are filed to the main petition and the application for Kejriwal’s interim release by April 2, 2024.

Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 and subsequently remanded to the ED’s custody until March 28 by a Delhi court, sought immediate release on the grounds that his arrest was unlawful. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, stated that the “voluminous” petition was only served to them on Tuesday, and they should be given time to record their stance.

During the hearing, Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, stated that the coercive action was based on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused-turned-approvers, Raghav Magunta and P Sarath Chandra Reddy. He pointed out several “glaring issues” that required the high court’s immediate decision.

Justice Sharma noted that it would be unfair not to allow the ED an opportunity to counter the petitioner’s stance by filing a detailed response, especially when the relief sought in the main petition and the interim application, i.e., his release, is similar and identical.

The court observed that the ED may have some “additional material”, gathered during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, which may be crucial in deciding the current case. Therefore, the court rejected Singhvi’s argument that the respondent is not required to file a response.

The court also stated that any order releasing the petitioner from custody would amount to granting the petitioner bail or interim bail as an interim measure, and its writ jurisdiction is not a “ready substitute” for a bail application.

Singhvi contended the arrest of a sitting chief minister on the cusp of elections after a model code of conduct had come into force was against the basic structure and the concept of a “level playing field” for polls.

He alleged that the arrest was without any “necessity”, as mandated under the provisions of PMLA.

“Object of the arrest was not to find material but to disable me and my party politically. My prayer is, release me now”, he argued.

“Of course, a sitting CM can be arrested. The question is the timing,” Singhvi added.

The senior lawyer also argued that any “non-cooperation” cannot become a ground for arrest, adding, “Non-cooperation is the most abused phrase since ED got hyperactive”.

Singhvi also claimed that exculpatory statements in favour of the accused were suppressed by the agency which was making a “mockery of fair process”.

He also alleged that the agency’s request for time to file a response was motivated and a delay tactic.

“Democracy itself is involved. Basic structure is involved. Level playing field is involved. Even an hour spent in custody is far too long if arrest is illegal,” Singhvi said.

He further said that the vicarious liability cannot be imposed on Kejriwal for any alleged violation of PMLA by his party.

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