While Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s lawyer pointed to the timing of his arrest, the Enforcement Directorate underlined equality before the law, as arguments closed in the AAP leader’s petition in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who had denied interim relief to Kejriwal last week, reserved the order for Thursday afternoon after hearing arguments for over three hours today. 

The chief minister was arrested by the ED in the liquor scam case on March 21. He was first sent to ED custody, which was subsequently extended to April 1, and then remanded in judicial custody in Tihar jail for 14 days.

Kejriwal’s arguments

Arguing for Kejriwal, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi alleged that the “sole” purpose of the arrest was to “humiliate the Aam Aadmi Party”. He questioned the move ahead of the Lok Sabha polls saying the case “reeks of timing issues”.

He accused the ED of not complying with Section 50 of the PMLA which empowers it to collect evidence and issue summons. He claimed that it was “preposterous” to say that the Chief Minister of Delhi will be handling hawala transactions.

Singhvi pointed to a supposed pattern of the statements the ED had relied on, where initially there was nothing against Kejriwal. The CM too had detailed the alleged loopholes in these statements in court last week – read all about it here.  

He also argued how some of the witnesses had either joined the ruling party’s ally after giving incriminating statements against Kejriwal, or had donated to them via electoral bonds. 

Singhvi said that ED wanting to find out the role of the chief minister could not be a ground of arrest and there had to be a specific role of the petitioner. He asked if “any of the genius crimes” ED was accusing Kejriwal of happened after the notification of elections. 

What ED said

With a pun on Kejriwal’s party, ASG Raju said, “The aam aadmi (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? You will loot the country but no one can touch you because the elections are coming?”

To bolster his argument, Raju wondered if a terrorist who blew up an army vehicle could use the same argument to seek protection on the pretext of contesting elections.

According to the ED, Kejriwal is “not only the brain behind AAP but also controls its major activities,” and was “involved in the decision making of the policy as is evident from the statements of the witnesses. 

However, the ASG said that Kejriwal’s “role is not required to be looked at. What is required to be looked at is that he was responsible for the affairs of the company or party”. “Findings of the actual proceeds of crime is irrelevant if we make out a case that you were involved in money laundering.”

In an affidavit it had filed before the high court, ED claimed the chief minister is the “kingpin” and “key conspirator” in the case. 

Replying to Kejriwal’s lawyers’ claim that proceeds had not been recovered, the ED said that they had been able to locate a money trail. 

“Supposing a political person commits murder two days before elections. This means he can’t be arrested? Basic structure comes into play? Criminals are supposed to be arrested and put in jail. In such cases there is no infringement of basic structure,” the ASG argued.

He asked if Kejriwal, who had not opposed the latest trial court order which sent him to 14 days judicial custody, could challenge the remand order in court now. “The fact that a PMLA offense has taken place is clear and beyond any doubt.”