Chief Minister Kejriwal, the “Kingpin” of the Excise Scam, Colluded With His Ministers And AAP Leaders: From ED To SC

The ED has informed the Supreme Court that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is the “kingpin and key conspirator” of the excise policy scam and that an arrest for an offense based on substantial evidence can never go against the idea of free and fair elections.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, Kejriwal demanded bribes from liquor companies in return for favors provided under the policy, and he did this while working in concert with his ministers and AAP leaders.

The agency said in its 734-page reply document that “Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of the NCT of Delhi, is the kingpin and key conspirator of the Delhi excise scam in collusion with ministers of the Delhi govt, AAP leaders, and other persons.”

It claimed that Arvind Kejriwal was part of a plot to design the excise policy 2021–22 in a way that would benefit specific individuals and that he was also requesting bribes from alcoholic beverage industry players in return for policy benefits.

The ED said that the petitioner, by stressing his position, is trying to create a distinct category for himself that cannot be recognized and that there are no different provisions in the PMLA, 2002 for different standards of proof to be available to arrest a Chief Minister or a regular citizen.

“The arrest of a person, however high he may be, for a commission of offence based on material, can never violate the concept of free and fair elections,” the probe agency that made the arrest of Kejriwal in this case stated in response to the activist’s claim that it violates the fundamental principles and doctrine of free and fair elections.

It said that “politicians who are criminals would be granted immunity from arrest on the ground that he is required to canvass in the election if the aforementioned argument is accepted.” It also said that treating a politician differently from a regular criminal in an arrest situation would be an arbitrary and unreasonable use of the arrest authority, which would go against the equality principle guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

The agency said that Kejriwal’s detention resulted from the investigating officer having evidence, as needed by section 19, that would prove his culpability of money laundering, a crime punishable under the PMLA. “A differential treatment in favor of a politician guilty of money laundering would violate the “rule of law,” which is a fundamental component of the Constitution,” the statement said.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) justified Kejriwal’s detention by stating that it was a lawful arrest made without cause or irregularities. “Any suggestion that this was a false arrest is flatly refuted. About the mala fide claim, it is argued that in addition to being speculative, generic, and nonspecific, the petitioner’s claims are also unfounded and ill-founded.

It was highlighted that Kejriwal, who is the AAP’s convenor and chief decision-maker, participated in the usage of the money obtained from crimes during the Goa election campaign.

In addition to highlighting the fact that the chief minister was avoiding questioning by failing to appear in person before the investigating officer despite nine summonses, the ED claimed that Kejriwal had demanded bribes from the South Group in return for doing them favors during the creation and execution of the Excise Policy 2021–2022.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said that the ED has turned into “a machine for telling lies” in response to the affidavit. In its affidavit, the ED stated that the petitioner’s guilt for money laundering was established through the accused’s actions, which also included helping the investigating officer determine whether an arrest was necessary in addition to the evidence the IO had.

The ED rejected Kejriwal’s appeal contesting his detention, claiming it was “devoid of merit” and subject to dismissal. It said that many courts had reviewed the evidence that the investigating officer had used to support his arrest.

“Therefore, the petition is without merit and subject to being dismissed in limine on this narrow ground.”The investigating agency’s second contention in this regard is that after being viewed and reviewed by three separate judicial authorities (courts) at three different levels, the material it had in its possession—which served as the foundation for the agency’s determination that the accused person needed to be arrested—had found judicial imprimatur, leading to the denial of the petitioner’s request for relief in connection with the matter.

On March 21, only hours after the Delhi High Court denied Kejriwal’s request for immunity from the federal anti-money laundering agency’s coercive measures, the ED detained him. He is now being held in judicial custody at the Tihar prison. The ED was notified by the top court on April 15 and asked to respond to Kejriwal’s appeal.

The investigative agency stated in its affidavit that “he was evading answering questions by being totally non-cooperative even with respect to simple non-incriminating questions” on the day of the search while recording his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).” The AAP responded to the ED’s affidavit by stating, “The ED has turned into nothing more than a machine for telling lies.” Every time the BJP, its employers, command the ED to fabricate fresh falsehoods, they do so. The case concerns allegations of money laundering and corruption during the creation and implementation of the Delhi government’s now-cancelled excise policy for 2021–2022.