ED action ‘illegal’, assault on democracy, Arvind Kejriwal tells Supreme Court

The Delhi CM, who remains in judicial custody, painted the money laundering case against him as a move by the central government to suppress political opposition

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday vehemently contested his recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, labelling it as “illegal” and an “unprecedented assault” on the pillars of democracy, besides condemning the ED’s actions as a glaring display of “high-handedness” by the agency.

A large banner of jailed Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal hangs from the balcony of a building during his wife Sunita Kejriwal’s election roadshow for the Lok Sabha polls in New Delhi on Saturday. (PTI)

Kejriwal’s affidavit, submitted two days ahead of the hearing in the top court, argued that his arrest by the ED not only violates his personal rights but also undermines the democratic fabric of the nation, constituting an unprecedented attempt to undermine the principles of free and fair elections and federalism.

The Delhi CM, who remains in judicial custody, painted the money laundering case against him as a calculated move by the ruling central government to suppress its political opposition, particularly the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its leadership.

“The present case is a classic case of how the ruling party led central government has misused the central agency- Enforcement Directorate and its wide powers under PMLA to crush its biggest political opponent, Aam Aadmi Party, and its leaders,” the affidavit said

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had on April 15 issued notice on Kejriwal’s plea but declined to take up his appeal for an interim release in relation to the money laundering probe linked to Delhi excise policy case until the ED responds.

The Delhi CM hurried to the Supreme Court on April 10, less than 24 hours after the Delhi high court rejected his plea against ED arrest on March 21 while holding that the agency possesses adequate evidence at this stage to suggest Kejriwal’s involvement in money laundering related to the excise policy case.

Replying to the Delhi CM’s petition by filing an affidavit earlier this week, the ED told the court that there are no special provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) that differentiates the arrest of a chief minister and an ordinary citizen. Calling Kejriwal “the kingpin and key conspirator of the Delhi excise scam”, the ED stressed that the decision to arrest Kejriwal was made based on substantial evidence and legal grounds. It refuted the AAP convener’s contention regarding the timing of his arrest — that it was to disable him from campaigning for his party during the Lok Sabha polls — and highlighting the CM’s alleged evasion of investigation for nearly six months during which he skipped nine of the agency’s summonses.

Rebutting the ED’s contentions, Kejriwal in his rejoinder affidavit on Saturday highlighted the timing and manner of his arrest, lambasting the agency for allegedly misusing its powers under the PMLA to target him just days after the general elections were announced, thereby compromising the electoral process and giving undue advantage to the ruling party.

“During an election cycle when political activity is at its highest, the petitioner’s illegal arrest has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner’s political party and will provide the ruling party at the Centre an unjust upper hand in the on- going elections,” the affidavit stated.

Kejriwal contended that his arrest, based on evidence allegedly possessed months prior, raises serious questions about the agency’s motives and the abuse of its arrest powers, especially during a crucial electoral period.

“...Timeline establishes the fact that the Petitioner has been arrested intentionally with a malafide intent without any necessity to arrest. A level playing field, which is a pre-requisite for ‘free and fair elections’, has clearly been compromised with the illegal arrest of the petitioner,” said the CM.

Further, Kejriwal challenged the ED’s assertions regarding his involvement in the liquor policy formulation, arguing that there is no concrete evidence linking him to any criminal activity or proceeds of crime. He refutes claims of coercion of witnesses and asserts that the ED’s actions are politically motivated, aimed at tarnishing his reputation and that of the AAP.

The Delhi CM reproached the ED’s actions as a glaring display of “high-handedness” by the agency, alleging a misuse of power and authority.

Kejriwal’s rejoinder also underscored his cooperation with the investigation and questions the necessity of his arrest, emphasising the lack of identified proceeds of crime or a clear money trail. He claimed that each ED summons was duly responded to, and the agency failed to specify any instance of non-cooperation on his part. He maintains that the ED’s actions violate due process and undermine the principles of fair and impartial investigation.

Imploring the Supreme Court to intervene urgently to safeguard his rights and liberties, especially in the midst of an election where such actions could unduly influence the electoral process, the Delhi CM underlined the need for accountability and checks on the exercise of ED’s powers to prevent arbitrary actions that could subvert the democratic process.

Delhi excise policy case has embroiled several high-profile names, including former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislator K Kavitha, who are presently incarcerated in the Capital’s Tihar jail. AAP MP Sanjay Singh’s release on bail earlier this month had come after the top court asked the agency why Singh should be kept behind bars after serving six months in jail, considering that there doesn’t appear to be any concrete evidence against him, and no money has been recovered linking him to the alleged money laundering offence. Another AAP lawmaker Satyendar Jain is also lodged in Tihar jail over charges of money laundering in a different case.

The Delhi excise case, which pertains to accusations of corruption, money laundering, and irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy, has seen the ED taking a stringent stance against the accused.