The Delhi high court on April 9 dismissed Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Liquor policy scam.
The single-judge bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the legality of the arrest by ED.
Justice Sharma said Kejriwal’s allegations against pardon to people making statements against him amounts to casting aspersions on judiciary and questions the judicial process. Justice Sharma further added that pardons to approves are granted by courts and not by the ED. “To cast doubt on the manner of recording statement of approver would amount to casting aspersions on the Court and judge,” the judge said.
What are the other major takeways from the Delhi HC verdict. Let's take a look
1. Who purchases electoral bonds is not the concern of the court
Justice Sharma argued that who has bought how much electoral bonds is not a factor in deciding the outcome of the case.
The Delhi CM had argued that Sarath Reddy, who is the son of Aurobindo Pharma founder PV Ram Prasad Reddy, paid Rs 55 crore to BJP as protection money through electoral bonds.
2. Question of non supply of documents and earlier statements (of approvers)
The court explained, "that you're entitled to inspect documents at the appropriate stage of trial. However, this is not the stage."
Kejriwal had alleged that earlier statements of the approvers were not included by ED because it did not suit the agency's agenda.
3. No special privilege
Justice Sharma said, "the investigating agency under criminal jurisprudence can't be directed to conduct investigation as per convenience of a person. It will take it's own course. She further said this court won't lay down different categories of laws, one for common citizens and other for granting special privileges for a chief minister."
4. Timing of arrest
The court said the arrest of Kejriwal has been done in a money laundering case and the examination of the arrest has to be done according to the law. The timing of the election is not relevant, it said.
"He (Kejriwal) would have known that Lok Sabha elections would be declared. He was unable to join the investigation," Justice Sharma said.
5. Not a political battle
Justice Sharma said court of law is not a place to deal with political considerations. "The matter before this court is not a conflict between central govt and Kejriwal. It's a case between Kejriwal and ED," Sharma said.
6. Enough material
The court said that the agency has enough material to claim that money was given for the Goa elections.
"This court holds that ED was able to place enough material, statements of approvers and their own candidate stating that he was given money for #GoaElections. It completes the chain regarding the money sent for Goa elections," it said.
Reacting to the development, AAP leader and Delhi minister Saurabh Bhardwaj said, "Whatever has happened till now in the so-called Excise Policy case- it can be said that the entire case is not about money laundering but it is the country's biggest political conspiracy...ED or CBI could not recover a single illegal rupee," ANI reported.
He further said, "We do not agree with the court's decision today. We will go to the Supreme Court against it..."
With inputs from Live Law
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
