The Tribunal in Delhi High Court, on the eve of this week, scheduled a session for May 15th to hear the petition of Chief Leader Arvind Kejriwal contesting the summonses served upon him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection to its investigation into a case of money laundering related to an excise policy.
A panel led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait extended an allowance to the AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) leader, who was apprehended by the agency on March 21st following the high court’s denial of interim safeguard against coercive measures, to prepare a response to the ED’s submission.
The legal representative for the ED contended that the petition had become obsolete since Kejriwal had already been apprehended in the money laundering case. “The declaration covers preliminary concerns on how the issue is now obsolete,” he stated.
The ED’s attorney informed the court that Kejriwal had contested the arrest in a separate petition, which was dismissed by the high court, and his appeal was presently pending before the Supreme Court.
The panel, also including Justice Manoj Jain, then inquired about “what remains unresolved in this case.” A senior counsel representing Kejriwal stated he would file a response to the ED’s position, highlighting that the initial actions taken by the anti-money laundering agency were not in accordance with the law (PMLA).
“The senior counsel for the applicant requests time to submit a response. Let this be done in two weeks,” the court declared. The AAP national convener had approached the high court following the ninth summons issued by the ED requesting his appearance before them on March 21st. The high court panel had, on March 20th, requested the ED to submit their response regarding the validity of the petition.
The subsequent day, it asked the ED to also address Kejriwal’s plea for protection from arrest, mentioning that “at this juncture” they were disinclined to grant interim relief. Kejriwal was detained by the ED later that evening and is currently confined in Tihar prison under judicial custody.
The federal investigating agency has alleged that other individuals implicated in the case were in communication with Kejriwal to develop the now-annulled excise policy, resulting in undue advantages for them and illicit gains for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
In his petition, Kejriwal has also contested the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) concerning arrest, interrogation, and the granting of bail.
He has brought up several issues, including whether a political organization is encompassed by the anti-money laundering legislation. It was claimed that the “arbitrary process” under PMLA was being employed to tilt the electoral process in favor of the ruling party at the Center during general elections.
Asserting that the petitioner is a “vocal critic” of the ruling party and a collaborator of the opposition INDIA bloc, the petition contended that the ED, under the control of the Union government, has been “weaponized.”
