SC: You can’t claim a statement wasn’t taken when you disregarded summonses

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was questioned by the Supreme Court on Monday for refusing to appear before the Enforcement Directorate despite many summonses. Kejriwal claimed that his detention was unlawful since the agency had proceeded without recording his testimony.

“By claiming that your statement made in accordance with Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not recorded, are you not contradicting yourself? Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Kejriwal, was addressed by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta. “You don’t appear on summons for recording of statement under Section 50 and then you say it was not recorded,” the bench said.

According to Singhvi, an accused person’s failure to cooperate with an inquiry cannot be used as justification for an arrest, and failing to show up when called upon is not an admission of guilt. He questioned the arrest’s timing, claiming that while Kejriwal’s complaint was filed 1.5 years ago, it wasn’t until the general election dates were revealed that he was taken into custody. He said that the CM’s name was absent from the first nine statements made by the other accused, but that it appeared in the tenth statement, which served as justification for the arrest.

For political reasons, Singhvi said that of the three approvers in the case, one joined the BJP, the other joined the TDP, the party’s partner, and the third sent money to the party via electoral bonds.

When the bench questioned him about why Kejriwal hadn’t submitted a bail request before the trial court, Singhvi said that the Chief Minister had contested his apprehension, citing broader legal authority. The attorney stressed that there was no issue of accepting the remand since the arrest itself was being contested, in response to the ED’s claim that the CM had accepted the remand imposed by the trial court.

Singhvi emphasized that Kejriwal appeared before the CBI on April 16, 2023, in relation to the matter, and he responded to all of the questions.

Singhvi refuted the ED’s claim that the CM was not entitled to any preferential treatment, arguing that the CM was entitled to the same rights as any other accused person.

The hearing will resume on Tuesday since it was not resolved.

The Enforcement Department (ED) claimed in its apex court reply filing that Kejriwal was the mastermind and principal conspirator of the purported Delhi excise policy fraud, and that he had requested bribes in exchange for altering the policy.

Kejriwal told the court in his petition that his detention was “illegal, arbitrary, and an unprecedented assault on the tenets of democracy based on free and fair elections and federalism,” accusing the Center of “misusing” ED to “crush” its political opponents before of general elections.

After Kejriwal ignored many summonses and refused to cooperate with the inquiry, the Delhi High Court upheld his detention on April 9 and said that there was no wrongdoing involved. The court also stated that the ED had “little option” going forward.