No Interim Order Passed Today In Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Against Arrest Even Though Supreme Court Remarked That If Released On Bail, Kejriwal Shouldn't Perform Official Duties
The Supreme Court did not finish hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest in a money laundering case stemming from the Delhi excise policy scam. Kejriwal was arrested by ED on March 21.
Pertinently, Rouse Avenue Court Judge today has extended Kejriwal's Judicial Custody till May 20.
Initially, the Court was hearing Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's Judgment upholding his arrest in the PMLA case. However, at 12:30 p.m., the Court noted that the submissions will take time and accordingly said that it will consider granting Interim Bail to Kejriwal because of the General Elections.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta clarified that, if they release Kejriwal on Bail, they do not want him to perform official duties.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the ED opposed the Interim Bail. "There cannot be any deviation only because he is a CM. Are we craving out exception for politicians? Would campaigning for elections be more important?" SG Mehta argued at the outset.
Justice Khanna said, "That is separate, elections are held once in 5 years. We don't appreciate this."
SG Mehta argued, "Chief Minister is evading summons 9 times..this will send a wrong message and demoralise a real common man. He gets the luxury of campaigning...we must be given a fair chance."
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Kejriwal contended, "Mr. Mehta is giving a wrong impression. Such interim bails are given, subject to conditions."
Justice Datta had clarified, "Suppose we grant interim bail on account of elections. Then if you say you will attend office, then it may have cascading effect.. Dr Singhvi, we do not want you to be performing your official duties, if we release you...We thought of releasing you on the interim only because of the Election. We are time constrained."
Opposing the Interim Bail, SG Mehta argued, "He (Arvind Kejriwal) holds no Ministry, No Portfolio, so no signature, therefore, no responsibility."
To this, Singhvi contended, "I am making a statement that, I (Kejriwal) will not sign any files, but let the LG not deny any permission taken by other officers in the government."
Accordingly, the Court tentatively scheduled the matter for further hearing day after tomorrow, i.e., April 9 or next week. Consequently, no interim Order was passed by the Bench today.
During the hearing of the plea against Arrest today, ASG SV Raju, on behalf of the ED contended that a lot of digital evidence has been destroyed by Kejriwal, and cash transactions for Rs. 100 crore have been transferred by hawala routes and spent in other States. "When the investigation began, it was not focused on Arvind Kejriwal; when the investigation progressed, he was named and his role became clearer," the ASG argued.
Justice Khanna said, "The issue before us is very limited, the compliance of Section 19 of PMLA. The second issue is, why the investigation from this stage to this, its almost 2 years, it is not good for an investigating agency to say it takes 2 years to unearth....When will Trial start? Which in this case will not arise, it may arise in other cases."
The ASG contended that it has been found that Kejriwal stayed in a 7-star hotel (Grant Hyatt) in Goa during the Goa Elections, the bill was paid by Chariot enterprises and their is documentary evidence. He argued this is not a 'politically motivated case', it is an evidence-based case.
Justice Khanna said, "The question is why it took so much time to investigate? Why the questions were not asked?"
To this, the ASG answered, "The investigating officer works at his own speed."
After hearing some submissions by the ASG, Justice Khanna said, "In this case, you have to be front-footed, because you are the one who has passed under Section 19 of PMLA....your defense of non-reference to earlier statement is of no consequence in my grounds to believe because those statements are not relevant so far as Petitioner is concerned."
SG Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the ED contended, "My concern is if your Lordships will entertain a mini-trial in a Article 226 Petition like this?".
Justice Khanna said, "No, no, we will just lay down the legal parameters under Section 19 PMLA...During remand, the onus is on ED, in Bail the onus shifts on the Accused."
Justice Datta asked the ASG, "If there are materials which points towards guilt and other which points to not guilty, can you selectively take some?"
Raju responded that it upon the Investigating Officer (IO).
Justice Datta said, "It is an executive act. What about balancing materials? You will have to balance both; you can't exclude one part."
The hearing concluded as a part-heard case, without any order being passed by the Court.
Last week, the Court had observed that it may consider granting interim bail to Kejriwal on account of elections. Earlier on April 29, the Bench had asked the Senior Counsel appearing for the Delhi CM, "Why have you not filed any Application For bail?"
Previously, the Enforcement Directorate had filed an extensive Affidavit-in-reply to the Special Leave Petition by the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, assailing the order passed by the Delhi High Court upholding the arrest and remand in the money laundering case. The ED in its reply has alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the kingpin and key conspirator in the Delhi Liquor Policy Excise Scam, responsible for the mass destruction of evidence and the main facilitator of the new policy for the bribe givers.
The ED stated in its Affidavit that there are reasons to believe based on material in possession that Kejriwal is guilty of the offence of Money Laundering. The ED also made a comparative table to demonstrate the changes made that were allegedly arbitrary and irrational, made only to ensure large-scale profits to the bribe givers. It was also stated by the ED that Arvind Kejriwal was asked to provide the password to his mobile phones again and again, but he refused to share the same and even his statements during custody would reveal that despite being confronted with materials, the petitioner chose to give completely evasive answers.
The Supreme Court had issued notice in the Special Leave Petition filed by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal challenging the Delhi High Court's Judgment upholding his arrest in a money laundering case stemming from the Delhi excise policy scam.
On April 10, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had mentioned seeking urgent listing and hearing of the Petition. While mentioning, Singhvi had told the Apex Court that the High Court's Judgment was passed based on unrelied documents that were suppressed from them. On April 1, Kejriwal was granted judicial custody till April 15, which was extended till April 23 and then now extended till May 7, 2024.
It is also to be noted that on March 27, the High Court had refused to grant any interim relief to the Chief Minister of Delhi. The Court had directed ED to file its reply in the interim Application as well as the main Writ Petition by April 2 and had clarified that no adjournment shall be granted on the date of the final hearing, i.e., April 3.
On March 28, the CM had made submissions in Hindi after obtaining permission from the Trial Court despite his Lawyers being present. Kejriwal had said a smokescreen of the AAP being corrupt had been created before the nation, and he had added that he is ready to face the ED probe. The submissions were made when the CM was produced on the expiration of his ED remand.
The AAP had first moved the Apex Court on March 21, 2024, late in the evening after the ED arrested Kejriwal. The agency took him to its headquarters in Central Delhi. The Delhi CM's legal team had attempted to get a late-night hearing from the Supreme Court. However, no special Supreme Court Bench was set up on Thursday night to hear the CM's plea challenging his Arrest. The Arrest of the first sitting Chief Minister came hours after the Delhi High Court had refused to grant protection to the AAP national convenor from any coercive action by the agency.
Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl) No. 5154/2024]