Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Arvind Kejriwal in Money Laundering Case

India :-  The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, declined to provide interim relief to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case linked to the excise policy 'scam'. The court stated that the issue at hand raises significant concerns that cannot be hastily decided without hearing the agency's stance.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued a notice on the petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party leader challenging his arrest and subsequent remand by the ED. The court directed the agency to submit its response, including on interim relief, before April 2, and scheduled the matter for final disposal on April 3, without granting any adjournments.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued for relief, asserting that the arrest was based on unverified statements of co-accused individuals whom he labeled as "Jaichands and Trojan horses" for their betrayal. He emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating that democracy, the basic structure, and a level playing field were all implicated. Singhvi alleged that the timing of Kejriwal's arrest, just before the Lok Sabha elections, was aimed at politically incapacitating him and his party.

However, the court rejected Singhvi's assertion that no response was necessary from the respondent, stating, "This court deems it appropriate to issue notice of the main writ petition as well as application for grant of interim relief, returnable on 03.04.2024."

Furthermore, the court ordered the Directorate of Enforcement to ensure that responses to the main petition and the application for interim release be filed by April 2, 2024.

Kejriwal, arrested on March 21 and remanded to ED custody till March 28, sought immediate release on the grounds of the illegality of his arrest. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, requested time to formulate their response, citing the recent service of the "bulky" petition.

During the hearing, Singhvi reiterated that the coercive action against Kejriwal was based on uncorroborated statements of co-accused-turned-approvers. He emphasized the need for prompt adjudication of the case due to several glaring issues.

Justice Sharma highlighted the necessity of allowing the ED an opportunity to counter the petitioner's claims, especially when both the main petition and the interim application sought similar relief. The court emphasized that crucial additional material gathered during the petitioner's custodial interrogation may influence the case's outcome.

The court underscored the importance of addressing the issues raised in the main petition before deciding on interim relief. It clarified that any release from custody would amount to interim bail, and its writ jurisdiction was not a substitute for a bail application.

Singhvi argued against the arrest's timing, stating it was against the principles of a level playing field for elections. He criticized the arrest as unnecessary under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Singhvi further accused the ED of suppressing exculpatory statements and employing delay tactics. He stressed that democracy, the basic structure, and a level playing field were at stake.

Regarding vicarious liability, Singhvi contended that Kejriwal should not be held accountable for any alleged PMLA violations by his party.

On April 22, the trial court extended Kejriwal's remand to ED custody until March 28 for detailed interrogation. The case revolves around alleged corruption and money laundering in the formulation and execution of the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22, subsequently scrapped.