Delhi High Court Deliberates on Arguments between Enforcement Directorate and Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi Excise Policy Case

The Delhi High Court heard arguments from both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal regarding the Delhi Excise Policy ‘scam’ on Wednesday.

Kejriwal, also the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) national convenor, filed a plea challenging his arrest by the ED in the case. The financial probe agency opposed his petition, citing that the investigation is still ongoing.

Here’s a summary of the key points presented during the court session:

1. ED Opposes Kejriwal’s Plea: The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that the investigation into Kejriwal is in its early stages and questioned whether Kejriwal could challenge the remand order after voluntarily agreeing to it.
2. AAP as a Company: The ED argued that AAP is considered a company under Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), asserting that Kejriwal’s responsibility for the party’s affairs is established.
3. Kejriwal’s Role: The ED emphasized that Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the case is not necessary, but his responsibility for the party’s affairs is crucial, citing Section 70 of the PMLA.
4. Timing of Arrest: Kejriwal’s side argued that the timing of his arrest was politically motivated, aimed at undermining the party before elections. The ED countered by stating that the timing of arrest should not be an issue if a crime has been committed.
5. Arrest of CM Before Elections: The ED questioned the notion that a Chief Minister cannot be arrested before elections, highlighting the equal application of law regardless of one’s position.
6. Proceeds of Crime: The ED stated that establishing the actual proceeds of crime is irrelevant if evidence shows involvement in money laundering. They pointed out that the money trail has been identified, even though the actual money may have been used elsewhere.

In response to Kejriwal’s arguments, the ED questioned the logic that incriminating evidence should be found at the accused’s residence, highlighting the complexities of tracing money once it has been transferred to others.

The court session concluded with both parties presenting their arguments, leaving the decision to the court.