In the bustling capital of New Delhi, the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, is slated to convene on Monday to deliberate on a petition brought forth by the prominent figure in Delhi’s political landscape, Arvind Kejriwal. This legal challenge pertains to his apprehension in connection with a purported scandal surrounding the implementation of excise policies.
A panel comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta is expected to preside over the proceedings. Kejriwal has previously voiced his contention to the apex court, asserting that his apprehension, which he deems unlawful, represents an unprecedented affront to the foundational principles of democracy, particularly those concerning the conduct of elections and the principle of federalism.
In a rebuttal to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) response affidavit, submitted in opposition to his petition contesting his arrest, Kejriwal contends that the circumstances surrounding his detention—occurring as they did on the cusp of national elections, during which the Model Code of Conduct was in effect—bear testament to the arbitrary nature of the agency’s actions.
Kejriwal asserts that his predicament epitomizes a clear instance of the misuse of power by the central government, leveraging the extensive authority vested in the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to suppress the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its leadership.
The assertion is made that the ED unlawfully apprehended a sitting chief executive and the national convener of a major opposition party mere days after the announcement of general elections and the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct.
He maintains that the arrest has fundamentally compromised the principle of a level playing field, imperative for the conduct of democratic elections. Kejriwal contends that the entirety of the grounds for his apprehension hinges on statements characterized as “self-incriminating confessions” by purported accomplices who have purportedly been granted immunity.
Questions are raised as to whether such statements can legitimately serve as evidence of guilt, as outlined in Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, justifying the arrest of a sitting chief executive of the National Capital Territory of Delhi or the national convener of a political party amidst general elections.
In his response, Kejriwal alleges that the sole objective of the ED was to elicit incriminating statements from him, and upon achieving this aim, the agency ceased any further actions against his alleged associates.
The AAP leader contends that the investigative agency’s motives were evident in its deliberate omission of statements made by co-accused individuals, which either contained no allegations or explicitly refuted any wrongdoing.
Kejriwal further maintains that the ED has failed to establish any connection linking him to the purported transfer of Rs 45 crore by a South group as an illicit kickback, purportedly utilized by the AAP during elections in Goa.
Referring to the ED’s response affidavit filed with the apex court, it is noted that one of the cited reasons for his arrest was his failure to appear before the investigating officer despite being summoned on nine occasions.
The ED, in its earlier response affidavit to the apex court, has asserted Kejriwal’s central role in the excise policy scandal, branding him as the mastermind behind the illicit activities. It argues that the arrest, based on substantiated evidence, does not undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
Kejriwal was taken into custody by the ED on March 21, subsequent to the Delhi High Court’s refusal to provide him with protection against coercive measures by the federal anti-money laundering agency. Presently, he remains confined in Tihar jail under judicial custody.
On April 15, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the ED, soliciting its rejoinder to Kejriwal’s plea. The high court, on April 9, upheld Kejriwal’s arrest in the money laundering case, deeming it lawful and asserting that the ED’s actions were necessitated by his repeated refusal to cooperate with the investigation.
The case revolves around allegations of corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of Delhi’s excise policy for the fiscal year 2021-22, a policy subsequently annulled.