NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday said Enforcement Directorate would have to give an explanation on the timing of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal ’s arrest, which was carried out just before general elections , and observed that the gap between initiation of proceedings in the alleged Delhi excise scam case and his arrest was “bothering” the court.
At the conclusion of Kejriwal’s submission by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked additional solicitor general S V Raju to be ready with answers on Friday to five questions it raised on the basis of Singhvi’s arguments, including on the timing of arrest and the time-gap in proceedings against the CM.
The five questions put to the ED by the bench are:
CM arrested 18 months after case was filed, says counsel
What is bothering us is the time gap between the initiation of proceedings and repeated complaints being filed after some time. If you see Section 8, there is a limit of 365 days. Other option is to not arrest... life and liberty are exceedingly important.”
“Why was the arrest made right before Lok Sabha polls?”
The agency will respond to the court’s queries on Friday. Singhvi, appearing for the CM, concluded his submission and contended that Kejriwal was arrested 18 months after the case was filed and that too on the basis of “hearsay evidence”. He gave a detailed timeline on how relief was granted to accused-turned-approvers soon after they named Kejriwal and were “forced by the agency to make statements against him”.
In his affidavit, the CM has accused ED of working on behalf of the Centre to crush its political opponents ahead of general elections and said his arrest was “illegal, arbitrary and an unprecedented assault on the tenets of democracy based on free and fair elections and federalism”.
“It is very sad and some kind of farce is going on. The agency is relying upon the statement of co-accused who were made to give statements prior to grant of pardon,” Singhvi said while referring to statements of Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy on the basis of which the chief minister was arrested.
He said Reddy gave the statement five months after his son Raghav Reddy was arrested, and once the latter turned approver, ED on the very next day did not object to his bail plea.
“The mode, manner and timing of the arrest of the petitioner just before Lok Sabha elections speaks volumes about the arbitrariness of the ED. This timeline establishes the fact that the petitioner has been arrested intentionally with a malafide intent without any necessity to arrest,” Kejriwal said in his affidavit.
At the conclusion of Kejriwal’s submission by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta asked additional solicitor general S V Raju to be ready with answers on Friday to five questions it raised on the basis of Singhvi’s arguments, including on the timing of arrest and the time-gap in proceedings against the CM.
The five questions put to the ED by the bench are:
- “Without initiating adjudicatory proceedings (attachment action), can you initiate criminal proceedings?” The court noted that there were no attachment proceedings in the case so far.
- “As far as the judgment in Manish Sisodia case is concerned, there are findings in his favour and against him also. Tell us which side this case (Kejriwal’s) lies.”
- “How is Section 19 of PMLA to be interpreted, as he (Kejriwal) is coming against his arrest...instead of applying for bail, because he will have to face the higher threshold under Section 45 of PMLA if he takes the latter course? So how do we interpret it? Do we make the threshold much higher and ensure the standard is same to find the person who is guilty?”
CM arrested 18 months after case was filed, says counsel
What is bothering us is the time gap between the initiation of proceedings and repeated complaints being filed after some time. If you see Section 8, there is a limit of 365 days. Other option is to not arrest... life and liberty are exceedingly important.”
“Why was the arrest made right before Lok Sabha polls?”
The agency will respond to the court’s queries on Friday. Singhvi, appearing for the CM, concluded his submission and contended that Kejriwal was arrested 18 months after the case was filed and that too on the basis of “hearsay evidence”. He gave a detailed timeline on how relief was granted to accused-turned-approvers soon after they named Kejriwal and were “forced by the agency to make statements against him”.
In his affidavit, the CM has accused ED of working on behalf of the Centre to crush its political opponents ahead of general elections and said his arrest was “illegal, arbitrary and an unprecedented assault on the tenets of democracy based on free and fair elections and federalism”.
“It is very sad and some kind of farce is going on. The agency is relying upon the statement of co-accused who were made to give statements prior to grant of pardon,” Singhvi said while referring to statements of Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy on the basis of which the chief minister was arrested.
He said Reddy gave the statement five months after his son Raghav Reddy was arrested, and once the latter turned approver, ED on the very next day did not object to his bail plea.
“The mode, manner and timing of the arrest of the petitioner just before Lok Sabha elections speaks volumes about the arbitrariness of the ED. This timeline establishes the fact that the petitioner has been arrested intentionally with a malafide intent without any necessity to arrest,” Kejriwal said in his affidavit.
You may also like
'US withholding 'sensitive intelligence' on Hamas leaders from Israel'
Moment of glory not far: Pradhan tells students whose scores in CBSE exams did not meet expectations
Sharmin Segal Says She Gave 16 Auditions For Heeramandi Amid Backlash: 'I Prepared For A Year'
Former Russian President Medvedev threatens Nato with 'special ammunition'
