Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea contesting the summonses he received from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to its investigation into the money laundering case connected to the excise policy was scheduled for hearing before the Delhi High Court on July 11.
The AAP leader, who was granted temporary relief by the Supreme Court till June 1 to campaign in the Lok Sabha Elections, was allowed a further four weeks by a bench led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait to file a rebuttal to the ED’s reply.
The ED’s legal representative had previously said that Kejriwal’s detention by the agency on March 21 in connection with the money laundering case, after the high court’s denial of his request for temporary immunity from coercive action, rendered the petition against the summonses null and void.
The agency’s attorney said on Wednesday that the petitioner has to choose the forum in which he intends to bring up his concerns.
Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi
The AAP leader’s petition against his detention was denied by a single high court judge, but the court noted that the judge had previously addressed the leader’s complaints and that an appeal of the ruling was still ongoing before the highest court.
“Follow directions. Justice Manoj Jain was also on the court when it said, “Nothing survives in petition.” On behalf of Kejriwal, senior attorney Vikram Chaudhary argued that the court should give Kejriwal more time to file his rejoinder, pointing out that the issues raised in the petition regarding the “reading down” of the PMLA’s provisions have not been decided by the single judge.
“Counsel for petitioner seeks and is granted four weeks to file rejoinder,” the ruling said.
Kejriwal was given two weeks by the court to submit his answer on April 22.
Following the ED’s eighth summons, the AAP national convenor went to the high court, requesting an appearance on March 21.
On March 20, the high court bench requested that the ED provide a response about the petition’s maintainability.
The next day, it requested a response from the ED to Kejriwal’s application for immunity from arrest, stating that “at this stage” it was not inclined to provide him with any temporary respite. Later that night, the ED detained Kejriwal.
Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi
According to the federal inquiry agency, Kejriwal was in contact with other defendants in the case while he was designing the now-canceled excise policy that gave them excessive advantages and paid bribes to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
Kejriwal has also contested the constitutionality of other PMLA clauses, including those pertaining to arrest, interrogation, and bail granted, in his suit.
He has brought up a number of topics, one of which is whether the anti-money laundering statute applies to political parties.
The claim was that the general elections were being manipulated to “skew the electoral process in the favour of the ruling party at the Centre” by use of “arbitrary procedure” under the PMLA.
The appeal said that the ED has been “weaponized” since it is under the authority of the Union government and that the petitioner is a “vocal critic” of the governing party and a partner of the opposition INDIA group.