E-Paper
ED's 'catch-22 situation' in attaching AAP properties in Delhi excise policy case
Arvind Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with money laundering probe linked to the excise policy case.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday opposed Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest in a money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy. Refuting Kejriwal's claim that his arrest around election time disrupted a level playing field and violated the basic structure, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, appearing for the probe agency, labelled such assertions as “completely ridiculous.”
“It will give license to criminals to roam around freely. The common man has to go behind bars if he has committed a crime but because you are a chief minister you can't be arrested?” the law officer asked rhetorically.
"You will loot the country but no one can touch you because the elections are coming? You say your arrest will infringe on basic structure? What type of basic structure is this?” he added.
Read: ED rejects Arvind Kejriwal's ‘arrest linked to polls’ claim in Delhi high court
A single-bench judge of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing the matter.
Raju contended that Kejriwal’s plea was being argued as if it were a bail application or a quashing petition rather than a challenge to his arrest.
He highlighted the delicate position the ED found itself in, mentioning the reluctance to attach properties of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) due to potential backlash during election seasons, while also facing criticism for lack of evidence if they refrain from doing so.
"So I am in a bit of a dilemma. We are thus in a catch-22 situation,” Raju told the court.
Read: Arvind Kejriwal Delhi high court hearing: 'Bid to stop me from participating in election'
The ED stressed that the investigation into Kejriwal was still in a “nascent stage”, contrary arguments made “as if the investigation has been complete and chargesheet has been filed.”
Raju submitted that Kejriwal's custody is in regard to the April 1 order and the AAP leader won't be entitled to be released even if the March 22 and March 28 orders of ED remand are set aside.
“This is a bail application in the guise of writ. It’s nothing but a bail application,” he said.
On Kejriwal's argument that nothing was found from his residence, Raju said, “Where is the question of ‘nothing found from my house’? You used the money in the Goa election. When ED asks you where is the money? You say I don't know”.
“Concealment can be in different ways. It can be sent abroad and when ED asks, you say, ‘Mujhe nahi pata’. The finding of the proceeds of crime is irrelevant.”
Read: AAP to organise fast as part of protest against Kejriwal’s arrest
Concerning Kejriwal’s contention that section 70 (offence by companies) would not be applicable to AAP since it is a political party registered under the Representation of People’s Act, Raju said that AAP is an association of individuals.
“The definition of company under section 70 of 70 PMLA is wide. It not only includes firms but also associations of persons and individuals. AAP is a company under section 70 of the PMLA.”
On Kejriwal’s contention that ED did not have sufficient material to arrest the CM, the law officer referred to the trial court’s March 22 order in which the special judge had observed that conditions under section 19 of the PMLA were complied with.
“This is not a mechanical order but an order which has been passed after application of mind,” he added.
(With bureau inputs)
