“Life and liberty are extremely important,” the SC asks Kejriwal’s arrest and the ED’s response by this Friday

The Supreme Court questioned the timing of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s detention by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to the money laundering case involving the tax policy on Tuesday, describing life and liberty as “extremely important.” Kejriwal was taken into custody just before the Lok Sabha polls started.

 

During the hearing of Kejriwal’s appeal contesting his detention for the second day in a row, a division of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, a number of questions and requested a response by Friday.

The bench emphasized how crucial “life and liberty are extremely important.” “The last question is regarding the timing of the arrest, which they have pointed out, the timing of the arrest, soon before the general elections,” they said to Raju as they questioned him. “You can’t deny that.”

Citing the 365-day statute as a guideline, they also pointed out the considerable amount of time that had passed between the initiation of the investigation and the arrest. Kejriwal’s case will probably continue to be heard by the highest court on Friday, with alternate judges beginning on Wednesday.

“Mr. Raju, we would like you to respond to a few questions when you submit your work,” it said. First, in light of several PMLA rulings from this court, may the ED start a criminal investigation without first undergoing an adjudicatory proceeding?

The court pointed out that there haven’t been any attachment procedures in this matter yet, and if there are, the ED has to show how Kejriwal, the petitioner, is connected to them.

In the excise policy fraud case, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia had a mixed ruling on his bail request; Justice Khanna noted that one judge had ruled in Sisodia’s favor and the other against him. The court commented, “You (Raju) have to tell us which part of Sisodia verdict does the petitioner (Kejriwal) case lie.”

Justice Khanna brought out another important point about the ED’s arrest power, which has been the main justification for Kejriwal’s repeated court petitions.He clarified that, although not being spoken directly, it is clear why Kejriwal continues to contest the remand. They contend that the prosecution, not the accused, has the burden of proof in accordance with section 19 of the PMLA.

Justice Khanna went on to explain that although the burden of requesting bail under section 45 of the Act rests with the accused, arrests under section 19 of the PMLA have a very high bar.The ED may make an arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA if there is reasonable suspicion that the subject has committed a crime for which they are legally responsible.

Section 45 of the PMLA stipulates that in order to grant bail, the court must be persuaded that there are reasonable reasons to think the accused is not guilty and won’t commit any crimes while on release, and the prosecution must have an opportunity to object to the bail plea.

The Supreme Court questioned Kejriwal’s refusal to show up for his scheduled statement recording sessions with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday. Because his story was not recorded, it became possible that Kejriwal would contest his detention in a money laundering case related to the excise policy scheme.

Since his detention in relation to the case on March 21, Kejriwal has been detained by the courts in Tihar prison. On April 15, the Supreme Court sent a notice to the ED for a response to Kejriwal’s petition. The High Court had earlier, on April 9, supported Kejriwal’s detention, ruling that it was legal and that the ED had limited choices due to his persistent defiance of summonses and refusal to cooperate with the inquiry.

The issue concerns suspected money laundering and corruption related to the creation and implementation of the Delhi government’s now-canceled excise policy for 2021–2022.