On Friday, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Excise Policy case, known as Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta reviewed the written record of the case today and directed the ED to present a chart illustrating any new evidence that emerged after the arrest of former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, which the ED used to justify Kejriwal's arrest. The Court clarified that Kejriwal could apply for bail in the meantime.
Kejriwal was apprehended by the ED on March 21 in connection with allegations of a criminal conspiracy involving AAP leaders, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, to manipulate the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 to benefit certain liquor sellers unlawfully.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the evidence cited to defend Kejriwal's arrest was pre-existing and not disclosed during his arrest. He contended that there was no mention of the use of funds in the Goa elections in the grounds of arrest provided to Kejriwal.
Singhvi further objected to the ED's reliance on witness statements, highlighting discrepancies and challenging the credibility of the evidence presented.
The Court had earlier granted interim bail to Kejriwal until June 1 to facilitate his participation in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, following the rejection of his plea against arrest by the Delhi High Court.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, argued that the agency had established a link between kickbacks and the distribution of funds in Goa during the election campaign.
The Court also questioned the ED's practice of not disclosing the "reasons to believe" guilt to the accused upon arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Raju contended that such disclosure was not mandatory at the time of arrest, emphasizing the importance of preserving evidence and protecting witnesses.
In conclusion, Raju argued against the Court's intervention in scrutinizing the evidence at this stage, warning that it could set a precedent leading to a flood of similar petitions.
