On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India reserved its judgment on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the liquor policy case. The court allowed Kejriwal to apply for bail from the trial court.
The hearing was presided over by a bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta. Representing the ED was Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, while Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued on behalf of Kejriwal.
During the hearing, Singhvi highlighted that the first summons from the ED on October 30, 2023, did not name Kejriwal as an accused. Even the summons issued on March 16, 2024, did not list him as an accused. However, Kejriwal was arrested five days later on March 21. Singhvi argued that the ED had not provided any evidence indicating that Kejriwal used proceeds from the alleged crime. He questioned the necessity of the arrest, pointing out that the evidence presented by the ED dated back to before August 2023.
ASG Raju responded by stating that new evidence had come to light, including chats between Kejriwal and hawala operators. Singhvi countered, questioning the timing and relevance of this new evidence.
The courtroom witnessed a heated exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Singhvi. Justice Khanna intervened, requesting both parties to focus on providing relevant information to the court. The bench asked what new material had emerged since the arrest of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
Singhvi emphasized that the ED’s evidence primarily consisted of old information and statements from individuals with questionable credibility. He argued that Kejriwal’s right to liberty was paramount and that mere filing of chargesheets did not justify arrest. He cited the Vijay Madanlal case, underscoring the need for impartiality and accountability in investigations.
Justice Khanna noted that under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the basis for arrest must be provided, but not necessarily the reason for belief. Singhvi argued that the ED had not adequately justified Kejriwal’s arrest, highlighting that the evidence available at the time of arrest was insufficient.
The bench allowed both parties to submit additional notes and documents within a week. The Supreme Court’s decision is awaited, as it will significantly impact Kejriwal’s legal standing and potentially the political landscape in Delhi.