The Supreme Court on Monday questioned Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal to his arrest notwithstanding his unwillingness to provide a statement to the Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi liquor policy case. “If you do not go for recording of Section 50 statements, you cannot claim that his statement was not recorded,” said Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a member of the two-judge bench hearing the case.
Section 50 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) addresses the ability of ED personnel to issue summonses and provide records, proof, and other items.
Mr Kejriwal argues in his suit that both his arrest and incarceration are unlawful. Its motivation was political, as evidenced by the time – ahead of the general elections. “The attempt is to decimate a political party and topple an elected government of the NCT of Delhi,” the statement said.
During Monday’s hearing, his barrister, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, reminded the court that arrests may only be made based on proof of guilt, not mere suspicion. “This is also the threshold in Section 45 of the PMLA (law against money laundering),” he added, noting that the investigative agency has not recoded the Delhi Chief Minister’s comments.
“Are you not contradicting yourself when you claim that his remarks under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not recorded? “You don’t appear on summons for recording of statements under Section 50 and then claim it wasn’t recorded,” the bench observed, wondering what the investigating officer could do if Mr Kejriwal did not show despite repeated summons.
“Non-recording of Section 50 statements is not a defence to arrest me for reasons of believing there is guilt,” Mr. Singhvi said. “I am stating that other documents do not demonstrate my culpability. The ED came to my residence and arrested me. Then why can’t ED record my statement under Section 50 at my home?” he said.
The Chief Minister has ignored summons for interrogation nine times, according to the Enforcement Directorate’s submission to the court. “Today, you cannot claim that we would arrest you because you failed to appear on summons. Can you say that you will be arrested because you did not cooperate? Non-cooperation is not a criminal offence or grounds for arrest. “This court ruled last year that non-cooperation cannot be used to justify arrest under the PMLA,” Mr Singhvi said.
He further stated that last year, on April 16, Mr Kejriwal was questioned by the Central Bureau of Investigation and responded to all of their questions.
The Enforcement Directorate claims that Mr. Kejriwal avoided interrogation and was evasive and obstructive while giving his testimony under Section 17 of the PMLA. Mr. Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 and taken into jail by the agency for questioning. On April 1, he was transferred to Tihar prison and placed under judicial custody.
Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court supported Mr. Kejriwal’s detention, stating the Enforcement Directorate had “little option” after he ignored numerous summonses.
The CBI has claimed that spirits corporations were engaged in the development of the Delhi excise scheme of 2021–22, which was later abolished. The proposal, which would have resulted in a 12% profit, was drafted after accepting bribes from a spirits lobby known as the “South Group.”. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the kickbacks were laundered.
The hearing will continue on Tuesday.
