In a major development, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21, 2024, in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam case. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has challenged his arrest and remand, filing a plea in the Delhi High Court seeking immediate release. However, the Delhi High Court Denied Bail and issued notice on the main petition and interim application, directing the ED to file replies by April 2, 2024. The matter will be taken up for final disposal on April 3, 2024, without any further adjournment.
Background on Delhi Liquor Policy Case
The case revolves around allegations of corruption and money laundering in the 2021-22 Delhi excise policy, which was later scrapped. The ED alleges that the policy benefited certain liquor manufacturers and retailers in exchange for kickbacks to the AAP. Several AAP leaders, including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, have been arrested earlier in connection with the case.
| Key Allegations | Status |
|---|---|
| Corruption and money laundering in 2021-22 Delhi excise policy | Policy scrapped |
| Policy benefited certain liquor firms for kickbacks to AAP | Multiple AAP leaders arrested, including Satyendra Jain, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh |
Arvind Kejriwal Arrest and Remand
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him interim protection from arrest. The trial court remanded him to ED custody till March 28. The ED claims that Kejriwal was the “kingpin and key conspirator” in the alleged scam.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 21 | Kejriwal arrested by ED after HC denies protection |
| March 22 | Trial court remands Kejriwal to ED custody till March 28 |
Kejriwal’s Plea in Delhi High Court
Challenging his arrest and ED remand as illegal, Kejriwal filed a plea in the Delhi High Court. Senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the arrest impinges on the “basic structure” of the Constitution and impacts the level playing field before elections. Singhvi also contended that the ED has not shown the necessity of arrest and that the non-cooperation charge has been misused.
Court Proceedings and ED’s Stand
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing Kejriwal’s plea in the Delhi High Court. The ED sought more time to file a reply, stating that granting interim relief would amount to deciding the main plea. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, argued that Kejriwal did not cooperate and was involved in formulating the policy and handling proceeds of crime.
Respondent’s Right to File Reply
- The Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, opposed the petition and argued that they have the right to file a reply and be heard before any order is passed.
- The court agreed that denying the ED an opportunity to file a reply would amount to a denial of fair hearing and violation of the principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
Importance of Issues Raised
- The petition raises several critical issues regarding the legality and validity of Kejriwal’s arrest and remand, including concerns related to Article 21 of the Constitution, Section 19 of PMLA, and the validity of an approver’s statement.
- The court opined that such important questions cannot be summarily heard and decided by giving only one party (petitioner) the opportunity to file documents and arguments.
Additional Material with ED
- The court noted that the ED might have additional material collected during Kejriwal’s custodial interrogation, which they may wish to place before the court and could be crucial for deciding the case.
Identical Relief in Main Petition and Interim Application
- The relief sought in the main petition’s prayer (C) for Kejriwal’s release and the interim application’s prayer for his release are identical.
- Deciding the interim application would amount to disposing of the main petition’s prayer (C) without calling for the ED’s reply.
Writ Jurisdiction vs. Regular Bail
- The court observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a ready substitute for seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Considering these factors, the Delhi High Court issued notice on the main petition and interim application, directing the ED to file replies by April 2, 2024. The matter will be taken up for final disposal on April 3, 2024, without any further adjournment.
Political Reactions and Implications
The AAP has alleged that Kejriwal’s arrest is politically motivated to weaken the party before the elections. Opposition parties like Congress, RJD, and DMK have expressed support for Kejriwal, accusing the BJP of misusing central agencies. Experts say that prolonged custody may lead to governance issues in Delhi and the possibility of President’s Rule.
| Party | Reaction |
|---|---|
| AAP | Alleges arrest politically motivated to weaken party |
| Opposition | Expresses support for Kejriwal, accuses BJP of misusing agencies |
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court will continue hearing Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest and remand on April 3. The outcome of the case could have major political implications ahead of the 2024 general elections. The case also highlights the challenges in getting bail under the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
As the legal battle unfolds, the political ramifications of Kejriwal’s arrest are likely to intensify. The case has once again brought the issue of alleged misuse of central agencies to the forefront, with opposition parties rallying behind the Delhi Chief Minister. The coming days will be crucial in determining the future course of the case and its impact on the political landscape of the country.
You Can Read or Download the PDF of Court Order from here
