In the corridors of the Delhi High Court, a session slated for July 11th will deliberate over Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea contesting the summonses dispatched by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection to its inquiry into the excise policy-linked money laundering affair.
A bench led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait extended an additional four weeks to the AAP leader, who had previously been granted temporary reprieve until June 1st by the Supreme Court to engage in campaign activities for the Lok Sabha Elections. This extension aims to facilitate the filing of a rejoinder to the response furnished by the ED.
Previously, counsel representing the ED argued that the petition against the summonses had become obsolete post the agency’s apprehension of Kejriwal on March 21st in the money laundering case, subsequent to the high court’s denial of interim protection from coercive measures.
During the recent hearing, the agency’s legal representative asserted that the petitioner must determine the forum for addressing his concerns. Additionally, the court noted that a singular judge of the high court had already addressed Kejriwal’s grievances while dismissing his petition against arrest, with an appeal against this decision pending in the apex court.
“Seek guidance. There is no remaining substance in the petition,” remarked the bench, also including Justice Manoj Jain. Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, contended that the issues raised concerning the “reduction” of provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) had not been adjudicated by the singular judge and sought an extension to file the rejoinder.
“The petitioner’s counsel requests and is granted a four-week extension to submit the rejoinder,” stated the court. On April 22nd, Kejriwal had been allotted a fortnight to present his rejoinder.
The AAP national convenor had petitioned the high court following the ninth summons issued by the ED, mandating his appearance on March 21st. The bench had directed the ED on March 20th to submit its response regarding the admissibility of the petition.
The subsequent day, the court instructed the ED to address Kejriwal’s plea for protection against arrest, expressing reluctance to grant interim relief at that juncture. Kejriwal was subsequently apprehended by the ED later that day.
The federal investigating agency has alleged that other defendants in the case maintained communication with Kejriwal to devise the now-defunct excise policy, resulting in unjust advantages for them and kickbacks to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
In his petition, Kejriwal has contested the constitutional validity of specific provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) regarding arrest, interrogation, and bail. He has raised various concerns, including whether a political entity falls under the purview of the anti-money laundering legislation. The petition contends that the “arbitrary process” under PMLA has been manipulated to tilt the electoral scale in favor of the ruling party during general elections. Describing the petitioner as a “vocal critic” of the ruling party and a collaborator of the opposition INDIA bloc, the plea alleges that the ED, under the influence of the central government, has been “weaponized”.