STATE TIMES NEWS
NEW DELHI: In a massive blow to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld his arrest in a money laundering case stemming from the alleged excise scam, saying the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) revealed that he conspired and was actively involved in use and concealment of proceeds of crime.
It also chastised the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor for questioning the timing of his arrest and underlined that an investigation against the “classes and masses” cannot be different.
The court rebuked Kejriwal for “casting aspersions” on the judicial process with his claim about an approver in the case against him making donations to the BJP through electoral bonds, saying the law relating to approvers was over 100 years old and not enacted to falsely implicate the politician.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the AAP leader’s petition challenging his arrest and subsequent remand in ED’s custody and asserted that there was no contravention of legal provisions as the agency had enough material in its possession.
“Courts are concerned with constitutional morality and not political morality,” she asserted.
“Material collected by ED reveals that Kejriwal conspired and was involved in formulation of excise policy and used proceeds of crime. He is also allegedly involved in personal capacity in formulation of policy and demanding kickbacks and secondly in the capacity of national convenor of AAP,” said the judge while pronouncing the order in court.
“The material placed before the court by the ED included statements of hawala dealers and statement of candidate of AAP who fought elections in Goa in 2022. This court holds that ED was able to place enough material in the shape of hawala dealers’ statements, approvers’ statements and own candidates who referred to the fact that he was given money in cash for expenditure in Goa elections. This court has also gone through the statements which complete the chain that money was sent in cash for Goa elections,” added the bench.
The court ruled that Kejriwal’s arrest was not illegal and the trial court remanded him in the custody of the agency by a well-reasoned order.
“This court holds that arrest of Kejriwal was not in contravention of sections concerned. Consequently, his remand cannot be termed as illegal,” Justice Sharma concluded.
She read out the judgement for 25 minutes and also explained certain portions of her decision in Hindi.
The court clarified that it was not dealing with Kejriwal’s bail plea but his writ petition challenging the arrest on certain grounds.
It emphasised that law applied equally to all and also held that the rigours of Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which deals with companies, are attracted in this case. The ED had likened AAP to a company and Kejriwal its director.
The court observed that political considerations and equations are not relevant to legal proceedings, clarifying that the present case was not a conflict between the Centre and Kejriwal but between him and the ED.
“Political considerations and equations cannot be brought before a court of law as they are not relevant for legal proceedings. In the case at hand, it is important to clarify that the matter before this court is not a conflict between the central government and petitioner Kejriwal. Instead it is a case between Kejriwal and Directorate of Enforcement,” Justice Sharma said.
The court said the statements of approvers against the AAP national convenor would be judged during trial as it cannot hold a mini trial at this stage. It added that Kejriwal would be free to cross-examine the approvers at the stage of trial.
In his petition, Kejriwal had sought his release on several grounds, including that the belated statements of approvers Raghav Magunta and Sarath Reddy cannot be relied upon as the latter even donated to the BJP through electoral bonds.
“In this court’s opinion, who gives tickets for contesting elections to whom or who purchases electoral bonds and for what purpose is not the concern of this court as this court is required to apply the law and the evidence recorded as it is,” the court said in its judgement.
It asserted that the law of approver was “more than 100 years old” and was not enacted to “falsely implicate the present petitioner”.
“To doubt and cast aspersions regarding the manner of granting pardon or recording statements of approvers amounts to casting aspersions on the judicial process since granting of pardon or recording of statement of the approver is not the domain of the investigating agency. It is a judicial process wherein a judicial officer follows the provisions of CrPC for recording the statement of approver and also granting or not granting pardon,” the court said.
It also asserted that no “special privileges” can be extended to a chief minister by an investigating agency.
On Kejriwal questioning the timing of his arrest, the judge said,”In this court’s opinion, this contention has to be rejected since the investigating agency under the Indian criminal jurisprudence cannot be directed to conduct the investigation in accordance with convenience or dictates of a person. …Investigation qua classes and masses cannot be different.”
Kejriwal, who was arrested by the ED on March 21 after he skipped nine summonses for his appearance, had argued that the federal anti-money laundering agency could have questioned him through video conference or by sending a questionnaire or quizzed him at his residence.
“This court would not lay down two different categories of laws– one for the common citizens and the other granting special privilege to be extended by investigating agencies either to a chief minister or any person in power only on the basis of being in public office…The accountability of public figures has to be held through the public,” it said.
The court observed that it cannot accept Kejriwal’s contention that he was arrested on account of the upcoming Lok Sabha polls, adding that the issue has to be examined only in the context of law, and not the timing.
