In New Delhi, the Supreme Court queried the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the transformation of Rs 100 crore proceeds of crime into Rs 1,100 crore within two to three years in the Delhi excise policy case. The court also questioned the lengthy duration of interrogation by the central agency and the lack of direct and pertinent inquiries at the initial stage.
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju informed a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that digital evidence had been obliterated. In its affidavit filed in response to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest in the Delhi excise policy case, the ED asserted the destruction or alteration of “crucial digital evidence” and a significant number of mobile phones, totaling over 170, by 36 individuals.
Raju contended that 100 crores were funneled through hawala channels in cash transactions and expended in other states, resulting in Rs 1,100 crore as proceeds of crime. Justice Khanna queried the exponential increase from Rs 100 crore to Rs 1,100 crore within such a brief period, expressing skepticism about such a remarkable rate of return. Raju clarified that Rs 590 crore constituted “wholesaler profit,” to which Justice Khanna remarked that the entire profit cannot be deemed proceeds of crime, highlighting a disparity of approximately Rs 338 crore.
Raju explained that initially, the investigation did not target Delhi CM Kejriwal, and questions about him arose later in the course of the inquiry. However, the bench noted the protracted duration of the interrogation, opining that it was unsatisfactory for any investigative agency to require two years to uncover pertinent information. Raju cited instances such as Kejriwal’s stay at a luxury hotel in Goa during the state’s elections, during which part of his expenses was allegedly covered by a cash-paying individual. He emphasized that the case was not politically motivated.
Responding to queries from Justice Khanna about the delay in the interrogation and the absence of direct or relevant questions, Raju asserted that understanding the intricacies of the case and unraveling potential conspiracies necessitated time, particularly given the policy implications involved.
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on whether to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who has been in custody since March 21 in connection with a money laundering case linked to the defunct Delhi excise policy.
Raju defended Kejriwal’s arrest, asserting the necessity of substantive evidence to justify such action. Justice Datta raised concerns about the balance between inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, stressing the importance of considering all relevant materials before depriving an individual of their constitutional rights. Justice Khanna noted the stringent benchmark set by Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), emphasizing the need for the ED to meet this standard.
Raju affirmed his consideration of all pertinent materials but clarified that not all considerations necessarily informed the decision to proceed with the arrest, which relied solely on evidence indicative of guilt.