We May Consider Question Of Interim Bail For Arvind Kejriwal Because Of Elections : Supreme Court Tells ED

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 Friday (May 3) expressed that it might consider the question of interim bail for the purposes of Lok Sabha Elections if the hearing gets delayed. The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard the arguments this afternoon for about two hours and adjourned further hearing till next Tuesday (May 7)."It appears we can't complete today. We will post it on Tuesday morning itself. Mr Raju one more thing. If it is going to take time, it does appear it may take time, we may then consider the question of interim bail because of the elections. We may hear on that part because of elections," Justice Khanna said to Additional Solicitor General SV Raju while winding up today's arguments.Raju then asked the Court to take note of the statements made by AAP MP Sanjay Singh after getting bail from the Supreme Court. "Look at the kind of statements he is making," he said. Justice Khanna clarified that the Court is merely putting the ED on notice about the intention to consider the plea for interim bail and not expressing any opinion. "We are not commenting on it either way, we may or may not grant," the judge said."Just one thing more. Please also take instructions. Because of the position he holds, whether he should be signing official files," Justice Khanna added.During the hearing, Justice Khanna also asked about the dates of elections in Delhi and was informed that they are scheduled on May 23.Today's hearing saw Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi continuing his submissions from the previous day for Kejriwal. During the latter half of the hearing, ASG SV Raju started arguments for the ED.A brief account of the hearing is given below.Kejriwal was not an accused till arrest : Singhvi Singhvi stated that it was the stand of the ED itself that a person summoned under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not assume the character of an accused automatically.Even as per the summons issued by the ED on March 16, Kejriwal was not an accused. "So it is clear that I'm not in a position of accused till 16 March. What changed drastically (when he was arrested on March 21)?," Singhvi exclaimed. To buttress this argument, he stated that ED had no new material in its possession and that all the documents/statements it relied upon were from 2023."As per their own understanding, till 16 March, I was not an accused. How do they show the necessity to arrest on 21 March to a court? All evidence on which I am arrested is pre-2023 end. Every material is as on July, 2023," he submitted.He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the Senthil Balaji case which held that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 19 PMLA will vitiate the arrest. He also reiterated the submission that the ED has concealed statements which exculpated Kejriwal.Bench doubts the argument that political party is not covered under Section 70 PMLAApart from implicating Kejriwal for assisting the formulation of Delhi liquor policy - which allegedly enabled liquor companies to recoup bribes as profits - in his capacity as the Chief Minister, ED also alleged that he is vicariously liable as the chief of the Aam Aadmi Party, to which a part of the proceeds of the crime was allegedly diverted. The agency relied on Section 70 of the PMLA to implicate the political party.Singhvi contended that a political party will not come under Section 70 PMLA as it specifically mentions "company". Company is defined in the section to mean "any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals". He argued that Section 70 was intended to deal with corporates and a political party cannot be regarded as an "association of individuals."However, the bench expressed difficulty in accepting this argument. "It is a little difficult...a society is also an association of individuals. Can it be said that a society won't come under the provision?" Justice Khanna said.Observations in Manish Sisodia case judgment applicable to Kejriwal : SinghviResponding to a query raised by the bench on the last day, Singhvi submitted that Kejriwal's case is covered by the favorable findings made by the Supreme Court in the judgment which denied bail to Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. Last day, Justice Khanna had pointed out that in Manish Sisodia case judgment, the Court had made certain favorable comments as well as adverse findings and asked which would cover Kejriwal.Singhvi stated that the comments made by the Court in paragraph 15 of the Manish Sisodia case judgment are applicable to Kejriwal. In that paragraph, the Court had observed :"Prima facie, there is lack of clarity, as specific allegation on the involvement of the appellant – Manish Sisodia, direct or indirect, in the transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 (rupees forty five crores only) to AAP for the Goa elections...

We May Consider Question Of Interim Bail For Arvind Kejriwal Because Of Elections : Supreme Court Tells ED

Debby Jain

Tags