Supreme Court questions the ‘timing’ of the Delhi CM’s arrest, ED to respond on May 3

Addressing the ED, Justice Khanna says – “You have to address us on the timing of his (Kejriwal’s) arrest before the elections.”

SC questions the continuous flow of complaints from the initiation of proceedings. It notes that Section 8 of the PMLA requires investigation to be completed at the most in 365 days

SC notes that Section 19 of the PMLA casts a fairly high onus on the prosecution. Hence, the accused is not opting for bail, because then he will have to convince the judge that he is not guilty.

SC asks ED which facts of Manish Sisodia’s case are relevant to Kejriwal’s case.

“Life and liberty are very important. We cannot deny that”, Justice Khanna asserts. 

Singhvi refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment in V. Senthil Balaji v. State case on the issue of non-cooperation with the ED. 

He also refers to a host of safeguards incorporated within the PMLA against “vexatious arrests”. 

Singhvi argues that “proceeds of crime” need to be interpreted strictly by the Court. He says that the possession of unaccounted property acquired by illegal means may be actionable for tax violation, but not necessarily under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

He asserts that no statement under Section 50 of the PMLA has been recorded so far. 

Singhvi points out that no adverse finding was recorded against the Delhi CM in the Supreme Court’s judgment denying bail to former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia. 

Justice Khanna says initially he was in two minds about taking up Kejriwal’s case as he had decided the Manish Sisodia’s bail plea. 

“Initially I thought, since I decided that case, whether I should take up this. Then I thought it may be misunderstood as my not wanting”, the judge says. 

Referring to approver Raghav Magunta and his father Ongole MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, Singhvi says – 

“Please read between the lines. He and his father are now contesting elections. Farce going on as far as far as approvership is concerned”, he says. 

Also Read: Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy and his son Raghava meet JSP chief Pawan Kalyan

“On Goa elections, ED says funds for campaigning were sent to the AAP national convenor. It does not say crime proceeds came through Kejriwal”, Singhvi argues. 

The senior counsel asserts that prima facie there is a lack of clarity about the involvement of the Delhi CM. 

“No proceeds of crime found in his (Kejriwal) possession. They are using the same statements given in 2023”, he adds. 

Highlighting the circumstances in which bail was secured by the approvers in the case, Singhvi says – 

“ED objects to Sarath Reddy’s interim bail even after his family member is learnt to be sick Then he gives statements in favour of ED. Regular bail is granted. ED objects to the interim bail of Raghav Magunta. Later, ED has suddenly no objection.”

“Opposition turns to benevolence”, he adds. 

Singhvi says that “it is accepted” that approver Sarath Chandra Reddy purchased the now invalidated electoral bonds. 

[Data divulged by the Election Commission revealed that Aurobindo Pharma Limited, which has Mr. Reddy as one of its directors, donated money to the BJP through the electoral bonds scheme.] 

Many pharma companies that bought electoral bonds faced regulatory actions

Top pharmaceutical companies purchased electoral bonds amidst regulatory scrutiny, including Hetero, MSN, Divi's, Intas, Lupin, Mankind, Micro Labs, and Natco.

Referring to the statement given by co-accused turned approver Sarath Chandra Reddy, Kejriwal’s lawyer contends – 

“No specificity, or date, no address. This at most does not say Kejriwal said give me money. This is innuendo. Where is section 3 here?”.

Similarly referring to another witness statement, the senior counsel says – “C. Aravind, a witness, refers to files about excise policy. At the highest, his statement may refer to bribery. But does not make out proceeds of crime.” 

[Section 3 of the PMLA refers to proceeds of crime. Singhvi points out that ED has not been successful in recovering the proceeds of crime] 

Singhvi points out that nine prior statements of co-accused Sarath Chandra Reddy which were made over the course of one year did not implicate the Delhi CM. 

Justice Datta asks if these statements are a part of the record. 

Singhvi responds by saying – “No, that is my complaint!” 

Singhvi points out that nine prior statements of co-accused Sarath Chandra Reddy made over the course of one year did not implicate the Delhi CM. 

Justice Datta asks if these statements are a part of the record. 

Singhvi responds by saying – “No, that is my complaint!”

“Sarath Reddy holds out against ED nine times. Then he applies for interim bail. His wife has cancer”, Singhvi asserts. 

Singhvi contends that the ED had suppressed and concealed statements of approvers in the prosecution complaint. Moreover there is no proceeds of crime under Section 3 PMLA, he says.

Singhvi says that the statements of witnesses are hearsay and that nothing directly involves the Delhi CM. 

“There is nothing about the proceeds of crime...Grounds of arrest must be comprehensive and must refer to relevant facts. If ‘A’ statement of a witness is relied upon, earlier contrary statements of the witness should also be relied upon”, he contends. 

[Singhvi had earlier argued that multiple earlier statements of the witnesses had denied any role to Kejriwal. Approver Sarath Chandra Reddy had given nine statements without naming Kejriwal.] 

Referring to Ongole MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy’s statement against the Delhi CM, Singhvi argues – 

“5 months down the line, due to son’s continuous incarceration, the father broke down...he gave a statement seeking to implicate Kejriwal. It contradicted the earlier statement. Son Raghav was granted bail the very next day!” 

Also Read: Excise policy scam | YSRCP MP’s son, Delhi businessman turn approver

Excise policy scam | YSRCP MP’s son, Delhi businessman turn approver

Raghav Magunta, Dinesh Arora allowed to turn approvers in ED case on Delhi excise policy; ED had not opposed applications. Court directs them to cooperate with investigation, disclose all info to investigators. ED alleges policy modified to extend favours, bribes diverted to AAP's poll campaign.

Justice Khanna agrees with Singhvi that the test for arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA is that the probe officer should take a decision on evaluation of objective criteria. Moreover, the officer should have reason to believe of the accused’s ‘guilt’ of the offence and not merely ‘suspicion’. 

“Opinion is that of the officer, not yours, not mine. The test is subjective satisfaction of officer on objective criteria...You (Singhvi) are right to the extent that there will be failure in the objective criteria if material in possession is ignored”, the judge says. 

Mr. Singhvi says that Ongole MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, the father of accused turned approver witness Raghav Magunta was forced to make an incriminating statement in lieu of bail for son.

“Raghav is arrested on 11 February. After arrest, father in March, 2023 states that he met petitioner in Delhi for charitable land purposes.” 

Singhvi while reading out from Mr. Reddy’s statement contends that he did not met the Delhi CM to discuss the Delhi liquor policy. 

Also Read: Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy and his son Raghava meet JSP chief Pawan Kalyan

[Raghav Magunta Reddy, son of YSR Congress Party Lok Sabha MP Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy and Delhi-based businessman Dinesh Arora have turned approvers in the money laundering case linked to Delhi excise policy case being investigated by the ED]. 

Mr. Singhvi outlines his submisions. 

“I will show context and circumstances in which statements of witnesses were recorded. Then I will come to the law on necessity of arrest, etc”, he says. 

The matter has been taken up for hearing. Senior advocate AM Singhvi is appearing for the Delhi CM. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju is representing the ED. 

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta will hear the Delhi CM’s plea against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate at 2 pm. 

The Delhi High Court on Monday said continuing as Delhi Chief Minister even after his arrest was Arvind Kejriwal’s personal choice, but his unavailability could not come in the way of poor school-going children getting free textbooks, writing material, and uniforms.

“The decision of the Chief Minister to continue to hold the position is his personal decision. However, it does not mean that if the Chief Minister is not available, the fundamental rights of young children would be trampled upon, and they would go through the first term (April 1 to May 10) without free textbooks, writing material and uniforms,” a Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora said.

Read more here. 

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor on Monday filed a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Cabinet Minister Atishi Marlena over poaching allegations made by the two who had said that Aam Aadmi Party leaders were approached by the BJP to join them in return for cash.

The matter is listed for hearing on May 4 in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Tanya Bamniyal of the Rouse Avenue Court.

Read more here. 

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal put up a spirited stand in the Supreme Court on April 29 against his arrest in the liquor policy case, saying mere non-cooperation with the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) cannot be a ground for his incarceration by the Central agency.

“My arrest came after the declaration of the Model Code of Conduct. What was imminent for my arrest? Was I a hardened criminal or a terrorist who would run away… So, did you leave a guilty Chief Minister to roam free all these years?” senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Mr. Kejriwal, submitted before a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.

Read more here. 

Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest is the biggest challenge thrown at the AAP as well as its leader. As he was led away by ED officers after his remand hearing at the Rouse Avenue Court, just few metres away from the AAP’s headquarters, he remained defiant. “My life is dedicated to the country, whether I am inside (jail) or outside,” he said. The question the political observers are asking is whether his party which revolves entirely on his persona would survive this attack in his absence or not.

Read more here. 

Arvind Kejriwal | The prophet of probity

The Hindu profiles on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate

The case arose from a report submitted by Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar to Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena in July 2022 alleging that there were procedural lapses in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, which came into force in November 2021 but was later scrapped in July 2022. 

The Chief Secretary alleged that kickbacks received by the Aam Admi Party (AAP) leaders from operators of alcohol businesses for preferential treatment were used to “influence” the 2022 Assembly elections in Punjab and Goa. Subsequently, the ED claimed that the scam involved giving wholesale liquor businesses to private entities with a fixed margin of 12% for a 6% kickback.

Read The Hindu’s detailed explainer here. 

The Central agency said that the arrest of Mr. Kejriwal was based on material evidence which indicated that the Chief Minister was guilty of money laundering. “A differential treatment in favour of a politician who is guilty of the offence of money laundering would violate the rule of law, which would be a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the ED noted.

Read more here. 

Read hereThe Hindu’s live coverage of the Supreme Court proceedings. 

Arvind Kejriwal arrest hearing News: SC to continue hearing tomorrow Delhi CM’s plea against ED arrest

Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea updates: The Supreme Court to hear Delhi CM Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest in a money laundering case stemming from the alleged Delhi excise policy scam