The Supreme Court sought a response from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Monday to a petition by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to quash his arrest in the Delhi Excise policy case, but did not relent to order his “interim release” or list the case on April 19.
Instead, a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta scheduled the case for the week commencing on April 29, urging Kejriwal’s lawyers to keep the powder dry till the next hearing.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi and advocate Shadan Farasat urged the court for an “extraordinarily short date”, possibly Friday (April 19). Singhvi pleaded with the court to consider the “timing of the Chief Minister’s arrest” by the ED. He said the arrest was timed to prevent the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener from campaigning for the Lok Sabha election.
The senior advocate said he had facts which would “shock the conscience of the court”. Singhvi said the Delhi Excise policy case was of September 2022. There was a First Information Report and an Enforcement Case Information Report. There were eight charge sheets. Fifteen statements had been recorded in the case so far.
“Mr. Kejriwal’s name does not figure in any of these documents,” he submitted.
But Justice Khanna drily responded that the lawyer should “reserve his arguments for the next date of hearing”.
Singhvi said there had been a lot of “selective leaks all over the place giving everybody a wrong impression” about the case of Kejriwal. “I am not aware of any selective leaks,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna responded. Justice Khanna said it was not possible for the court to give a date before the week commencing on April 29.
“We have given you a reasonable date… We have given you a short date. In no other case have we given such an early date when we could have given you a longer one,” Justice Khanna,” the judge told Singhvi
The senior lawyer underscored that the case was a very unusual one, and not solely as Kejriwal was the Chief Minister. The court’s notice was accepted on behalf of the ED by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who had appeared on caveat.
The court asked the ED to file its response by April 24. Kejriwal has to file his rejoinder to the ED’s reply by April 26.
Kejriwal had moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court had in its order in April 9 found nothing illegal about the Chief Minister’s arrest. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta had based its order on the prima facie finding that there was adequate material, including statements of approvers, involvement of middlemen and references that cash was handed over for expenditure in Goa elections.
Kejriwal had argued that the decision to swoop in and arrest him on March 21, merely days before the general elections, was an instance of ED being misused as a weapon to crush the Opposition and the federal system of governance.
The ED had countered in the High Court that the arrest and subsequent remand of Kejriwal were natural outcomes of painstaking collection of evidence. The agency had informed the High Court that the procedure of arrest was correctly followed. Kejriwal was furnished with the grounds of his arrest in writing. The agency had termed Kejriwal the kingpin and key conspirator of the Delhi Excise “scam”.
The ED had claimed he was involved in the conspiracy of formulation of the excise policy and also engaged in the demanding kickbacks from liquor businessmen in exchange of favours granting in the policy. The agency argued that Kejriwal was involved in the use of proceeds of crime generated in the Goa election campaign of the AAP. He was the party’s national convener and its “ultimate decision-maker”.
Iran promises Indian officials can meet with 17 detained Indian crew members ‘soon’
Iran said that it will allow Indian officials to meet with the 17 Indian crew members detained after its forces seized an Israel-linked ship, MSC Aries, “soon” after the issue was raised by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, who spoke to Foreign Ministers of both Iran and Israel on Sunday night.
In a readout of the conversation between Jaishankar and Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian released on Monday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said that they had discussed Iran’s drone and missile attack on Israel in what it called a response to Israel’s attack on the Iranian embassy on April 1 in which 7 Iranian diplomats and commanders died, as well as the situation in Gaza, and Red Sea.
In a post about his conversation earlier, Jaishankar said that he had taken up the release of the Indian crew members during his conversation and also discussed the strikes.
“Discussed the current situation in the region. Stressed the importance of avoiding escalation, exercising restraint and returning to diplomacy. Agreed to remain in touch,” he wrote on a social media platform.
“Dr. Amir Abdollahian mentioned that they are following up on the details related to the detained ship and the possibility of representatives of the Indian government meeting with the crew of the mentioned ship will be provided soon,” a translated version of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement said.
Jaishankar said that he had also shared India’s “concern at the developments”, indicating Iran’s drone and missile attacks, with Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz.
“Shared our concern at the developments yesterday. Discussed the larger regional situation. Agreed to stay in touch,” Jaishankar posted on social media platform X.
A statement by the Ministry of External Affairs issued earlier in the day had also not referred directly to Iran’s missile strikes, saying that India was “seriously concerned at the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran which threatens the peace and security in the region,” and calling for de-escalation and diplomacy.
The MEA statement, that suggested a neutral approach by New Delhi given India’s strong strategic ties with both countries was received with some disappointment by a former Israeli diplomat.
“As a supporter of Indian foreign policy, I find the weak, balanced MEA statement disappointing. I expected India to publicly condemn the attack, as did so many other friends [and] partners of Israel around the world. I hope that the FM’s call included a condemnation of Iran’s attack at least,” wrote former Israeli Ambassador to India Daniel Carmon.
Carmon was referring to the statements by the U.S., its allies and Western countries strongly condemning the strikes and affirming support for Israel, in contrast to the statement from New Delhi. On Sunday, the Iranian MFA had summoned envoys of U.K., Germany and France to protest their statements condemning the Iranian actions. In a briefing to diplomatic envoys, Abdollahaian also said that Iran had warned the United States against any “misadventure” in support of Israel.
According to the Iranian MFA statement on the call with Jaishankar, Abdollahian had also called for India’s “continued role through international institutions, including the U.N., to stop the war in Gaza, which is the root of current crises in the region,” and to stop Israeli “aggression” there.
It said that Jaishankar had called for a reduction in tensions, and responsible behaviour from all parties. In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that “at this point, the Islamic Republic of Iran has no intention of continuing defensive operations, but if necessary, it will not hesitate to protect its legitimate interests against any new aggression”.
U.P. Muslim student slapping case | SC asks State Government to clarify measures taken to prosecute teacher
The Supreme Court on April 15 asked the Uttar Pradesh government to clarify measures taken to prosecute a school teacher in Muzaffarnagar who goaded the classmates of a seven-year-old Muslim boy to slap him repeatedly while making communal remarks.
In March, a Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka had made sure that the State government took expert help from agencies such as HAQ, Muskan and Childline in counselling the child and his classmates after the traumatic episode. The court noted in the order that the State was “substantially complying” with its directions regarding the nature and depth of the counselling sessions. The court had made it clear to the State that the exercise should not be reduced to a cosmetic one.
The court’s intervention had led the child to be transferred out of the school, which was really operating from the teacher’s house, to a proper one. The State had agreed to pitch in with the child’s educational expenses. However, the boy’s father had complained that the State had turned unresponsive. The court agreed to hear his applications.
The court has consistently blamed the State government for its failure to provide a safe environment, recognised schools and qualified teachers for children in accordance with the Right to Education Act. The Act mandates quality, free and compulsory education for children up to 14 years without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed or gender.
The court had flagged the slapping incident as a “very serious” and direct violation of Article 21A (the fundamental right of a child to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution, the Right to Education Act and even the Uttar Pradesh Rules which task the local authorities to ensure that children do not face discrimination in classrooms.
The court said it would separately take up the larger issue of the implementation of the Right to Education Act in Uttar Pradesh.
In September last year, the court had criticised the State for a “watered-down” and delayed FIR against the teacher, 60-year-old Trpti Tyagi.
The petitioner, Tushar Gandhi, represented by advocate Shadan Farasat, had highlighted that corporal punishment was rampant in the Indian education system.
“The appalling and ghastly episode is preceded by a series of instances of violence against students belonging to marginalised communities,” the petition said.
After 600 lawyers, 21 retired judges write to CJI expressing concern over ‘escalated attempts’ to undermine judiciary
Over 20 retired judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts have written to the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud conveying their “shared concern” about the escalating attempts to undermine the judiciary through “tactics of misinformation” and public disparagement.
The letter follows a recent missive by 600 lawyers voicing the same concerns about a “particular vested interest group” pressurising the judiciary, influencing judicial process, and defaming the courts on the basis of frivolous logic and stale political agendas.
“This behaviour, we observe, is particularly pronounced in the cases and causes of social, economic and political significance, including the cases involving certain individuals, wherein the lines between advocacy and manoeuvring are blurred to the detriment of judicial independence,” the retired judges said, drawing their insight from their years on the Bench.
The former judges, including retired Supreme Court judges Justices Deepak Verma, Dinesh Maheshwari, Krishna Murari, and M.R. Shah, assured that they stand in solidarity with the judiciary.
The retired judges urged the Supreme Court to fortify itself against the workings of factions motivated by narrow political interests and personal gains “to erode the public’s confidence in our judicial system”.
They said these factions “selectively praise judicial decisions that align with one’s views while vehemently criticising those that do not”.
“Their methods are manifold and insidious, with clear attempts to sway judicial processes by casting aspersions on the integrity of our courts and the judges… The strategy employed by these groups is deeply troubling — ranging from the propagation of baseless theories intended to malign the judiciary’s reputation to engaging in overt and covert attempts to influence judicial outcomes to their favour,” the letter said.
Meanwhile, the Congress on April 15 alleged that the letter by 21 judges to the Chief Justice of India was part of an “orchestrated campaign of the prime minister” to “threaten, browbeat and intimidate” the judiciary that has flexed its muscles in recent months.
Asked about the letter at a press conference at the AICC headquarters in New Delhi, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh alleged that the “greatest threat” to judicial independence comes from the BJP.
“Please see the fourth name on that list and it will give away the whole objective, background and authorship of the letter,” he said in an apparent reference to former Supreme Court Judge M R Shah.
“This letter is a part of an orchestrated campaign of the prime minister to threaten, browbeat and intimidate a judiciary that has flexed its muscles in recent months. A judiciary that has called out India’s biggest corruption scandal, the electoral bonds scam...A Supreme Court which said there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery in Manipur, that is the target,” Ramesh alleged.
The Congress leader also claimed that the Supreme Court in which a very distinguished lady judge was highly critical recently of demonetisation is the target.
“So this letter of the 21 Modi-friendly former judges has to be seen along with that letter of 600 Modi-friendly lawyers. This is all an attempt to intimidate, frighten and browbeat an independent judiciary,” Ramesh alleged.
“The greatest threat to judicial independence comes not from the Congress party but from the BJP, it comes from Mr Modi. Mr (Amit) Shah...you see the comments made by the jurist who is the fourth signatory in that letter and the comments made about the PM when he was a serving judge, you will know where this letter has come from,” he added.
Poll roundup
- The Election Commission (EC) on April 15 said it was on track to seize the largest amount of inducements, including drugs and cash during an election in the last 75 years. Even before polling begins for the Lok Sabha elections, it has seized ₹4,650 crore, an amount which is higher than that recovered in the 2019 elections. During the 2019 general elections, ₹3,475 crore had been recovered by the EC. The commission said in a statement that the ₹4,650 crore seized included drugs worth ₹2,069 crore, cash amounting to over ₹395 crore, and liquor worth more than ₹489 crore. Since March 1, the poll body was seizing goods worth ₹100 crore every day. Approximately, 75% of the total seizures in January and February were of drugs.
- Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) chief Prakash Ambedkar on April 15 said if voted to power, his party will make a strategic decision not to retire contractual employees till 58 years, and it will bring a law for minimum selling price for farmers. Ambedkar released the VBA’s manifesto for the Lok Sabha elections. Ambedkar claimed that while the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) is being seen as an anti-Muslim law, it is also against 20% of the Hindu community. By bringing in the law, the BJP is cheating Hindu voters in the country, he said. The party will ensure free education from kindergarten to PG classes and spend 9% of funds on education, he added. Speaking to reporters, Ambedkar slammed Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, for his statement that the VBA should have allied with the Maha Vikas Aghadi in the interest of the nation and its move to contest alone will only benefit the BJP.
In Brief
A review petition in the Supreme Court has sought a review of a Constitution Bench judgment which struck down the electoral bonds scheme “alleging a make-believe violation of fundamental rights”. The petition said the Parliament, where petitioner-lawyer Mathews J. Nedumpara was “symbolically present”, had ushered in the scheme through an amendment in the Finance Act to curb black money. Admitting that the scheme would not have totally eradicated black money, the petitioner claimed it nevertheless had brought in “some element of transparency” by embracing confidentiality about donors.
Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.
