“Enough material”: Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against the ED’s detention is denied by the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s petition to overturn his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam, indicating more trouble ahead for the embattled chief minister of Delhi. The court stated that neither the law nor the rulings of the Supreme Court had been broken.

Because the probe agency had “enough material” to support Kejriwal’s arrest and the trial court had issued a well-reasoned order remanding him in the agency’s custody, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED and his subsequent remand in the agency’s custody and later in judicial custody cannot be held to be illegal.

On the eve of the Lok Sabha elections, Justice Sharma refuted his accusation of political vendetta, saying, “Courts are concerned with constitutional morality and not political morality.” She also said that the court had to follow the law as it was written.

“Kejriwal colluded, participated in the creation of the excise policy, and used the profits of the crime, according to evidence gathered by the ED. Judge Sharma dismissed Kejriwal’s appeal, saying, “He is also allegedly involved in his personal capacity in the formulation of the policy and demanding kickbacks in his capacity as national convener of AAP.”

It said there was proof that criminal funds were used for political advertising ahead of the Goa Assembly elections in 2022. After the High Court denied Kejriwal’s request for protection from coercive action by the investigation team in the money laundering case, the ED detained him on March 21. Kejriwal was placed under 14 days of judicial prison till April 15 by a Delhi special court on April 1.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) said that Kejriwal was the mastermind behind the scheme and that there were grounds to suspect the AAP leader of money laundering based on evidence within its purview.

According to this court, the accused has been taken into custody, and his arrest and detention should be reviewed in accordance with the law rather than the date of the elections. Political factors are irrelevant and cannot be brought before the court. The HC said that the court has to be careful to ensure that it is not impacted by any outside influences. It said that, in the absence of any wrongdoing on the side of the ED, Kejriwal’s petition against his arrest was unsustainable.

It is crucial to make clear that there is no disagreement between petitioner Kejriwal and the federal government in this case. Rather, it is a dispute between Kejriwal and the Enforcement Directorate,” the statement said. The Bench rejected Kejriwal’s claim that the ED could have gone to his home to get his statement, stating that the probe could not be carried out whenever it would have been most convenient for the accused. It declared that legislation could not be divided into two categories: one for regular people and another for chief ministers or other powerful individuals.

Justice Sharma made it clear right away that Kejriwal’s petition was not for bail and that it was contesting his arrest by the ED. Justice Sharma had previously reserved her decision on April 3 following hearing arguments from senior counsel AM Singhvi for the Delhi CM and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED.

“In this court’s opinion, who gives the ticket for contesting elections to whom or who purchases electoral bonds for what purpose is not the concern of this court as this court is required to apply the law and the evidence before it as it is and in the context in which it has been placed on record,” Justice Sharma said, rejecting Kejriwal’s claim that two of the approvers against him were connected to the BJP.

“Don’t disparage the legal system.”

Kejriwal was censured by the Delhi High Court for ‘casting aspersions’ on the legal system with his assertion that an approver in a case involving money laundering had donated to the BJP via electoral bonds.
It said that the statute on approvers was 100 years old and had not been passed to put him in jeopardy; the court’s job was to apply the rules to the issue at hand and was unconcerned with bond purchasers.
It also said that throwing doubt on the pardoning procedure or the way approver testimonies are recorded amounted to questioning the integrity of the legal system.