New Delhi. The Supreme Court heard the petition of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently in jail on charges of corruption in Delhi’s excise policy. During the hearing on Tuesday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed Kejriwal’s plea and claimed to have evidence against him. Kejriwal has challenged his arrest in his petition. ED’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that Kejriwal is accused of destroying electronic evidence and transferring Rs 100 crore through hawala transactions. The Supreme Court said that ₹100 crore is the proceeds of crime, but the amount of alleged corruption was put at ₹1100 crore. This discrepancy has raised questions.
ED’s lawyer argued that wholesale traders were unfairly benefited. Initially Kejriwal was not the focus of their investigation, but during the interrogation his involvement came to light. However, the court wanted to examine all aspects. The Supreme Court expressed concern over whether Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was properly followed during Kejriwal’s arrest. It seemed unfair that it took two years for Kejriwal’s arrest after the initial allegations.
ED claims Kejriwal demanded ₹100 crore, evidence shows he stayed in a 7-star hotel during Goa elections, the bill for which was paid by Chariot Enterprises. The court on the basis of this hearing As expressed intention to determine the scope of section 19 (arrest provision). Justice Khanna directed the ED counsel to complete the arguments by 12:30 pm and proceed with the hearing on interim bail in view of the ongoing elections while the Delhi Chief Minister is in jail.
The mention of crops and farmers prompted the Solicitor General to question the morality of keeping a farmer in jail during the harvest season. The court highlighted the regularity of elections compared to the harvest season.
The Solicitor General argued that summoning Kejriwal in October indicated imminent elections, which should not require release. However, the court rejected the notion that interim bail could be based only on the timing of elections. Both sides were directed to complete arguments on the arrest aspect by 1:00 pm, followed by discussion on interim bail at 2:00 pm.
The Solicitor General cautioned against creating an impression that politicians are above the law. The court assured that it will consider this aspect also. The Solicitor General stressed the need to differentiate between election campaigning, which is temporary, and farming, which is livelihood. The court mentioned avoiding physical presence for six months. He argued that the court should focus on the facts, suggesting that not promoting them would not lead to anarchy.