The Delhi High Court asked Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday why he is not appearing before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for questioning in an excise policy-linked money-laundering case, as it sought the agency’s stand on the AAP leader’s plea challenging the summonses issues against him. “Why don’t you appear on receiving the summonses? What is preventing you not to attend?” asked the bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, noted that the first summons was issued in October last year and said before anything else, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader is a citizen of the country. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the petitioner in the matter, said his client would appear before the ED but protection from coercive action is required because of the agency’s “clear intent” to apprehend him when elections are around the corner.
Delhi Cabinet Minister Atishi on Wednesday said the ED was not waiting for the court’s decision and sending summons to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in excise policy case, and asked the agency to respect the legal procedure. Atishi said, “The ED is sending multiple summons. The replies to the summons sent by Kejriwal questioning their legality have not elicited any response. ED opposed Kejriwal’s application in the high court. They demanded dismissal of application but the high court has sought their response,” she said. “We are asking about the legality of these summons. ED has not replied till now. ED went to the Rouse Avenue court against Kejriwal. Yet, it is not waiting for the court’s decision. We want to tell ED — please respect the legal procedure,” Atishi said.
Meanwhile, the Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva reacted to the hearing and said that it is time for Kejriwal to stop making excuses and cooperate with the ED and other investigative agencies. Questioning his credibility, Sachdeva said, “ If Arvind Kejriwal is truthful, then why is he evading the investigation? He should cooperate with the investigation, and the way AAP leaders have been misleading on the ED summons, all their voices have been silenced by today’s court directives.” He said that it is well-known that there has been a scam in the new liquor policy and also in the Jal Board in Delhi, and Kejriwal will have to answer for it.
Earlier, Kejriwal has moved the court in the wake of the latest summons, the ninth issued by the ED, asking him to appear before it on Thursday (March 21). The AAP leader has repeatedly refused to appear before the agency, calling the summonses illegal.
The court said arrest on the “first or second day” is not the “normal practice” as an investigating agency first records the reasons to do so, if grounds are made out. Citing the arrests of AAP leaders Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia in the matter, the senior lawyer, however, claimed that a “new style” of functioning is in place now. “I will appear. I will answer the questionnaire, but there is a protection that is required. I am not avoiding it. I am not running away from you. I will come myself but I need protection, no coercive steps,” Singhvi said.
“I am not a common criminal. Where can I run? Can anyone have roots in the society more than me?” he asked the bench. Singhvi also contended that the ED has asked Kejriwal to appear before it, without even clarifying if he is an accused or a suspect or witness in the matter. The court said he would get to know his status if he appears pursuant to the summonses and also asked why has he not taken appropriate legal action if he is anticipating arrest. “You received the first summons on October 30. We have seen your reply and you have given several reasons, including that Diwali festivities are around the corner. And now, we are on to the next festival, elections. So this would go on,” the court said. “Before anything else, you are a citizen of the country, the summons is by name,” it added.
The ED said the petition of the AAP national convenor, which also challenges certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), was not maintainable and opposed the issuance of a formal notice. The bench granted two weeks to the agency to file its reply on this aspect. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing in the court on behalf of the ED, said the issue of constitutional validity of PMLA provisions has already been settled by the Supreme Court and there cannot be any stay when there is a presumption with respect to such validity. Singhvi said the petition raises several issues, including whether a political party is covered by the anti-money laundering law.
In the petition, Kejriwal has contended that an arbitrary procedure under the PMLA is being employed to create a non-level-playing field for the upcoming Lok Sabha polls to “skew the electoral process in favour of the ruling party at the Centre”.