Supreme Court Questions ED About Timing Of Arvind Kejriwal's Arrest Soon Before Elections, Seeks Answers To 4 Other Queries

While hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 30) asked ED counsel Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to come prepared on next date with an answer to five queries, one being related to the timing of Kejriwal's arrest. 

The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard the matter at length, after giving a one-hour hearing yesterday. For a detailed report on the case background and earlier proceedings, click here.

The highlight of today's proceeding were queries that the bench put to ED, seeking explanation. The same were as follows:

(1) Whether without any adjudicatory proceedings, criminal proceedings can be initiated in terms of what has been held in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary or otherwise? (Justice Khanna mentioned that in Kejriwal's case, there have been no attachments proceedings till now. However, if there are, ED would have to show how he was related)

(2) There are two parts of the judgement in Manish Sisodia's case - one, which favors him, and the other which does not. Which part does Kejriwal's case fall in?

(3) How is Section 19 PMLA to be interpreted, as Kejriwal is coming against arrest and remand, instead of applying for bail, because he would have to face the higher threshold under Section 45 PMLA if he takes the latter course? ("Do we put the burden or evaluation much higher than and comparable with what normally a court would do at the time of, on the basis of allegation being correct, but at the same time ensuring that the standard would be the same as to find a person who is guilty...which is benefit of doubt, etc...an evaluation must be complete and thorough" Justice Khanna said)

(4) The time gap between the initiation of proceedings and repeated complaints being filed after some time (In this regard, it was expressed that the gap has consequences, especially since Section 8 PMLA prescribes a maximum time limit of 365 days for adjudicatory process. Justice Khanna also emphasized, "Liberty is exceedingly important, we can't deny it")

(5) The timing of arrest (before general elections): "Liberty is very, exceedingly important, you can't deny that. The last question is with regard to the timing of the arrest, which they have pointed out, the timing of the arrest, soon before the general elections" Justice Khanna conveyed to the ASG.

The matter is next listed on Friday.

Before posing the above queries, the bench heard Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Kejriwal) at length for about two hours. Live updates from the hearing can be read here.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) 5154/2024