Breaking: No Interim Relief To Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi High Court Issues Notice To ED On Plea Challenging Arrest And Remand

The Delhi High Court today issued notice on a plea moved by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and six days of remand in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however declined the sitting CM any relief for now and issued notice on his interim application seeking immediate release.This was after Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for ED submitted that Kejriwal's counsel had not given the agency a copy of the petition. He submitted that the petition was given at the last minute, and the Enforcement Directorate needed to file a reply and point out certain facts."Any order passed in the application for interim release of petitioner [Kejriwal], pending disposal of his main petition without calling for reply of ED, at this stage, would rather amount to deciding the main petition itself," Justice Sharma said.The petition was moved on Saturday (March 23) however as per ED, a copy of the petition was served on them only yesterday.Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kejriwal had submitted that the challenge was to remand itself and argued the matter did not require any replies. It was also submitted that it was not possible for them to serve a copy of the petition earlier since the Registry was closed on Saturday.Following which Justice Sharma had indicated that she will issue notice on the main petition and pass orders regarding the plea on interim relief.Significantly, Kejriwal's remand is to end tomorrow and he will be produced before the Rouse Avenue Courts in the city.While declining any interim relief, Court said that to reach a conclusion as to whether Kejriwal is entitled to immediate release or not, it will necessarily have to decide the issues raised in the main petition."The Court while hearing and deciding a case is duty bound to hear both sides fairly keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. Thus, the reply by Directorate of Enforcement is essential and crucial to decide the present case, and therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that no reply is required to be filed on behalf of the respondent is rejected...it will be unfair to not give an opportunity to the Directorate of Enforcement to rebut the same [submissions made by Kejriwal's counsel] by way of filing of a detailed response," Justice Sharma said.The judge added that it cannot be presumed that ED will have no reply to file and will remain bound only by the contentions raised before the Trial Court. “Moreso, since there may be some additional material in the possession of the investigating agency, collected during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein, which they may wish to place before this Court, which may be crucial to decide the present case. Such material may also be crucial for the petitioner himself,” the court said.It further held that any release order from custody will amount to enlarging Kejriwal on bail or interim bail and the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a substitute for recourse to the remedy of bail under Section 439 CrPC.ArgumentsSinghvi argued that in Vijay Madanlal's case it was held that Section 50 of the PMLA was the basis for inquiry and that the proceeds of crime were the focus. However, in this case, no Section 50 PMLA statement was recorded against Kejriwal and that the object of arrest had nothing to do with the PMLA, but was to create a non-level playing field in the upcoming general elections.It was stated that the three phrases "material in possession", "reason to believe" and "guilty" are vital conditions for arrest under Section 19 PMLA. However, there was no necessity to arrest Kejriwal since the agency was not even aware of his role in the alleged scam, Singhvi said.Reliance was then placed on the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar which laid down the guidelines for curbing unnecessary arrest. It was argued that at the non-trial preliminary stage, even assuming all material, there has to be proof of the necessity of arrest, and the totality of statements cannot form the basis for the same.Singhvi argued that "non-cooperation" was one of the most abused phrases by the ED, since an accused could not be compelled to give a disclosure of confession against himself, which would be violative of Articles 20 and 21.It was submitted Kejriwal's arrest directly impinges on the basic structure of the Constitution- free and fair elections, as the agency had no reason to pick him up just two months prior to elections. "Although it may seem a matter of criminal law, a sitting Chief Minister being arrested a week before general elections would go to the heart of democracy which ensured a level playing field for free and fair elections," he said.Singhvi also suggested that the central probe agency compelled the approver to give a statement...

Breaking: No Interim Relief To Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi High Court Issues Notice To ED On Plea Challenging Arrest And Remand

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags