The Delhi High Court is hearing a plea by Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal who has challenged his March 21 arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and subsequent remand in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma is hearing the matter.

Kejriwal was arrested on March 21, hours after his plea for interim protection from arrest was rejected by the Delhi High Court.

He was produced for remand before a trial court in Delhi on March 22, when the ED contended that he was the "key conspirator" in the alleged money laundering involved in the framing of the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.

Kejriwal, meanwhile, has accused the ED of running an extortion racket, while maintaining his innocence.

He was initially remanded to ED custody till March 28, which was later extended by four more days. Thereafter, the Court sent him to judicial custody till April 15.

Meanwhile, he challenged his arrest and remand before the High Court, which asked the ED to respond by April 2 before posting the case for further hearing today.

Live updates from the hearing today feature here.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appears for Kejriwal. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari also appearing for Kejriwal.

ASG SV Raju for ED.

Singhvi: Your lordship had heard the list of dates in detail. I want to make 7-8 points.

Singhvi: Keep in mind the importance of case in terms of level playing field. that's the first point. It is not just a phrase of word. It has three components which are vital. It is part of free and fair elections which in turn is part of democracy which in turn is part of the basic structure.

Singhvi: The timing of the arrest ensures that Mr Kejriwal is unable to participate in democratic activity. The effort is to try and disintegrate his party before even the first vote is cast.

Singhvi: Why I say this? Because the first summons is from October 2023 and the arrest comes on March 21. It reeks of mala fide and damage to basic structure and level playing field.

Singhvi: I am not talking politics but law. The timing of arrest here suggest a clear unconstitutional object.

Singhvi: The unique feature of this case is that there is no material in any manner under Section 50 PMLA.

Singhvi: The first summon is October 2023. The 9th summon to me is 16 March, 2024. Six months or so have passed. You are clearly doing an arrest without any inquiry, statement, material which can form the basis of arrest. It is unique that there is nothing under Section 50 at all.

Singhvi: There is zero Section 50 material. And because there is zero section 50 material, there is zero Section 19 PMLA material.

Singhvi refers to Vijay Madanlal judgement.

Singhvi: It is the inquiry which enables ED to make up their mind to some extent to arrest and prosecution etc. Please remember that there was no attempt to record Section 50 statement even at my residence. This is the second point, the unique feature of the case.

Singhvi: Now comes my third point. My not responding to summons is red herring. I respond in writing every time. The red herring that 'I sent you summons so many times' is no answer to saying 'I have no material to arrest.'

Singhvi: The necessity, rationale or imminence of requirement to arrest - please ask these questions to the ED again and again.

Singhvi refers to Pankaj Bansal judgement.

Singhvi: Because the condition of bail is so high, that is why the test of arrest is even higher and difficult. The threshold is not normal. There is the necessity to arrest test in Section 19.

Singhvi: Apart from the fact that your necessity to arrest is occassioned by completely ulterior motives... There is an old saying - "If I am, I can do anything." Just because you have power to arrest, the test is not "can arrest." The test is "should arrest" test.

Singhvi: The only object is to humiliate and insult. The true object of the arrest is to disable me.

Singhvi: Each of my 7-8 replies to the ED summons are very detailed. I have given my replies without any questionnaire. There is nothing that cannot be done this way so there is no necessity to arrest.

Singhvi: The other part of necessity to arrest is, is this man a flight risk? What can he do to affect the witnesses one and half year later? You have already recorded the statement. There are thousands of pages of documents. Third is cooperation. Which part of cooperation I am not doing?

Singhvi: Their remand application says they want to find in future, the Chief Minister's role in the entire conspiracy.. In future!

Singhvi: This can't be the ground for arrest.

ASG says the matter may be kept tomorrow because he has not been handed over the correct copy of the petition.

ASG: It is wrong paginated copy. How do I reply? Don't oversimplify the things.

Court: There is 8 page difference in the two copies.

Singhvi: One copy was with defects. He was served with the fresh copy.

ASG: The issue is that a wrong copy has been supplied to us which should not have been done.

Singhvi: Your junior picked up a wrong copy and gave it to you.

Court: Please tell him (ASG) the correct page number.

Singhvi continues.

Singhvi: The application of ED itself says that we need to find, one and quarter year later after the FIR and six months after the first summons, the role of Mr Kejriwal.

Singhvi again refers to Pankaj Bansal judgement.

Court: You want to read the judgement?

Singhvi: Yes.

Singhvi: Today I found an extraordinary point through press reports and their counter that "because Kejriwal himself has said because he does not challenge the custody before the trial court, the prior petition before the High Court is rendered infructuous." It is extraordinary plea, a plea unheard of in law.

Singhvi now refers to Senthil Balaji judgment of the Supreme Court.

Singhvi: My next point is this whole very, very unfortunate system of completely turning the criminal law on its head.

Singhvi: First, in several statements, there will be nothing against me. First is Raghav Reddy, Magunta Reddy and Sarath Reddy. Step 2: some of them are arrested. Step 3: first time they give statement against me. Step 4: they get bail by recording no objection from ED (an account) of, remarkably, back pain. Step 5: They are candidate for ruling party in the election.

Singhvi: One of them gives donation through electoral bond to ruling party. Mr Magunta did that.

Singhvi: This is a completely biased approach. They are turning the criminal law on its head.

Singhvi refers to statements of Raghav Magunta.

Singhvi: Magunta makes four statements. In three statements, there are no allegations against me. These are not even brought to the notice and simply kept in un-relied documents. It is completely unfair and contrary to criminal law procedure.

Singhvi: He then makes a statement against me and is granted bail 10 days later. This is making absolute joke of criminal law.

Singhvi now refers to statement of Raghav Magunta's father.

Singhvi: This statement of Magunta Reddy is also contrary to his earlier statements. This father has now joined the alliance part of the ruling party.

Singhvi: The third fellow is Sarath Reddy. In his first statement there is nothing against me. It is hidden by the ED. Even in next statement there is nothing against me.

ASG: I have objection. When we have not filed prosecution complaint against him where is the question of concealment?

Singhvi: I will make several wrong arguments.

Singhvi: There is a specific query to Sarath Reddy with respect to me and he specifically denies it.

Singhvi: Reddy is then arrest on 10 November. There are total 9 statements from him. 7 before arrest and 2 under arrest. This is ridiculous. the prosecution is saying till you give me statement against Kejriwal, I will keep recording statement. This is totally concealed. Is this fair?

Singhvi: Natural justice and Article 21... Nothing has changed since magna carta. Your job is to find the truth. You can't say I have something in your favour but I will not give it to you.

Singhvi: He then gives a statements on 25 and 29 April and immediately he gets bail. first on medical grounds then pardon.

Singhvi: It is utterly shameful. There are 13 statements by Reddy. There is nothing against me in 11 statements.

ASG objects.

ASG: We have not filed prosecution complaint against him (Kejriwal).

This is reprehensible conduct by a prosecutor which is supposed to be fair: Singhvi

Singhvi now refers to statement of Buchi Babu.

Singhvi also refers to statement of C Aravind.

Singhvi: He only says he gave a file to Sisodia when in the same room Kejriwal was also standing. That's it. Nothing more. What did he do? Nothing.

Singhvi: You have found nothing against me over all these years. This is clearly a fixed match you are trying to play.

Singhvi: Not a comma or full stop of corroboration is even alleged, forget proved.

Singhvi refers to certain judgments.

ASG: I have one more objection. They extract one paragraph of the judgement and does not give me the full judgement so that I can point out in which context the observation was made. They are doing it deliberately and they do it every time.

Singhvi: This is his third-best argument. He has already made his best and second-best argument.

Singhvi: These are not unreported judgements.

ASG: It is a question of propriety.

Singhvi: This was ruse number 3 to adjourn the matter.

ASG: I can't be expected to sit quiet when these things are done.

Singhvi continues. He is referring to certain judgements.

Singhvi: After several exculpatory statements ... weight of these statements without being tested in cross, is very very low.

Court: The standard of proof at time when the person is convicted and (standard) where chargesheet is not filed will be different.

Singhvi: My point is here, it falls in category of very weak because there is not corroboration.

Singhvi now refers to Supreme Court's judgement in Manish Sisodia case.

Singhvi: The only allegation is that these people gave me money so I have possession.

Singhvi: This (Manish Sisodia) judgement is from October 30. Nothing new has come after this judgement. What are we talking about?

Singhvi: Even in grounds of arrest there is nothing after this. We have checked every line.

ASG: It is factually incorrect.

Singhvi: They invoked Section 70 PMLA - it cannot arise at all since it is for companies. When a political party like AAP is registered party under Representation of People Act, then a different statute cannot be subsumed in the heading of 'company' in PMLA. Section 70 is falsely, inaccurately and wrongly used.

Singhvi: This is complete vicarious liablity.

Singhvi: It is often that these matters are treated like regular matters. I am opposing the slightest delay in the case.

ASG opposes senior advocate Amit Desai also making submissions for Kejriwal.

ASG: No aam aadmi (common man) can afford two senior lawyers. You may be powerful, you may be rich but you cannot have two senior lawyers like this.

Court: Mr Desai, I will hear ED after lunch. If there is anything you want to add, you can do that in rejoinder.

Court rises for lunch break.

Hearing resumes.

ASG: I am in a bit of a dilemma. This plea has been argued as if it is a bail application not a plea for quashing of the arrest.

ASG: We are wanting to attack some properties of AAP. If we do that then they will say "election k time p ye sab kiya?" (loose translation: what is all this at the time of elections?). If we don't do that then they will say "kahan hain proof? (translation: where is the proof?)." So I am in a bit of a dilemma.

ASG: Today as far as Kejriwal is concerned, the investigation is not over. It is at a nascent stage.

ASG: The third point is that he has challenged the arrest under Section 19 and the first remand order. Today there are three remand orders.

ASG: The first remand was only till 28 March. Today we are on April 3. The second and third remand orders have not been challenged. Today his custody is not pursuant to the arrest or first remand order. Today his custody is pursuant to third remand order which is not under challenge. Even if he had challenged the order, that challenge was not valid because he himself said I do not oppose remand.

ASG: He voluntarily says please remand me.

ASG: Please see the third order where he is sent to JC. Even here, he says he does not oppose. They are blowing hot and cold at the same time. It is clear case of acquiescence and waiver.

ASG: On this ground alone, his challenge is liable to be rejected:

ASG: Even if the earlier order is bad, unless the subsequent orders are set aside, he is not entitled to relief.

ASG: The first prayer in the petition is akin to habeas corpus.

ASG: Today a person is arrested, he is remanded to police custody for 5 days. A writ is filed challenging arrest and remand. Thereafter, he is put in further demand by subsequent orders.. So even if the first remand order is set aside you cannot come out unless the subsequent orders are set aside.

ASG: This is an academic exercise that they want to have today.

ASG: This is a bail application in the guise of a writ petition. This is nothing but bail application to overcome the rigours of Section 45 PMLA.

ASG: The fact that the offence of money laundering has taken place is beyond any doubt.

ASG: Why am I saying this? because courts have taken cognisance. Please see the first cognisance order. It is a settled position that cognisance is of offence not offender.

ASG refers to the first cognisance order in the Delhi Excise Policy case.

ASG: There is categorical finding that there has been money laundering. This order has not been challenged. It is accepted by all the accused.

ASG continues reading the trial court order.

ASG: All the five prosecution complaint the cognisance has been taken.

Cognisance indicates there is a prima facie case for trying the offence: ASG.

ASG: This indicates that a prima facie case of money laundering is made out. I am relying on two judgements for this.

ASG: These five cognisance orders have not been challenged or set aside.

ASG referring to a judgement.

ASG: Five times the magistrate has taken cognisance...

ASG now refers to Section 45 PMLA.

ASG now refers to Section 45 PMLA.

My contention is going to be that large number of accused have been denied bail by trial court, HC and Supreme Court. In a money laundering case one of the reasons is that prima facie guilt... If the bail is rejected it means there is prima facie case of money laundering: ASG.

ASG: Right up to Supreme Court, there has been no bail. It means there is a prima facie case.

ASG refers to SC's order in Manish Sisodia's case.

ASG: Vijay Nair was working from Kailash Gahlot's office. That house/office was right beside CM's house, he could practically jump to that house.

ASG: Those who did not give kickbacks were asked to surrender licenses so that those who gave the bribe could be faciliated.

ASG cites an examples of a vendor was was coerced to surrender the license.

ASG: IndoSpirits was blacklisted. So the files were moved to get it the license. The firm was granted wholesale license despite allegations of cartelisation. The complainant was forced to take back the complaint.

Earlier the wholesaler profit was 5% it was increase to 12%. It was done so that 7% portion can be used to give kickbacks and bribes: ASG.

This is accepted right till the Supreme Court. So the fact that there was a scam is beyond doubt today. No matter how much you cry but it is clear that there was a scam and government exchequer suffered a loss because of that: ASG.

ASG refers to role of AAP communications in-charge Vijay Nair.

ASG: All this is much prior to election. Now they are saying there is election. The fact that liquor policy was fudged to give profits and receive kickbacks is long back. Election is only being used as bogey. It is not as if ED has become active now.

ED also has constraints. Large number of phones and electronic devices have been destroyed. This is crores in value. You don't destroy or change your phones like this. You acted through middleman like Vijay Nair: ASG.

ASG: Today his (Kejriwal) attitude is "I am a saint" but actually you have done is very tactically. ED has found the evidence through hard work.

ASG refers to PMLA provisions.

ASG: Where is the question of mere ghar kuchh nahi mila? Paisa to aapne Goa election m use kar liya... When ED asks you kahan hain paisa? you say mujhe nahi pata.

ASG: Argument is agar maine kuchh kiya to mere ghar se kuchh milega. Lekin agar aapne paisa kisi aur ko de diya to aapke ghar se kahan se milega?

ASG: He (Kejriwal) is involved personally and vicariously.

ASG: The settled position of law is that suppose in a murder case if the dead body is not found, even then a person can be tried for murder. Just because the body is not found doesn't mean there is no murder.

ASG again refers to Vijay Nair's role.

ASG: I will give an illustration. Suppose a political person commits a murder two days before elections. Would he not be arrested? Will his arrest disturb basic structure? You commit a murder and say I can't be arrested because it would infringe on basic structure.

ASG: Criminal and undertrials have no business to say that we will commit a crime and will not be arrested because elections are here. This is completely ridiculous. it will give license to criminals to roam around freely.

ASG: Aam aadmi 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? You say your arrest will infringe on basic structure? what type of basic structure is this?

ASG: Take a case of terrorist who is also a politician. He blows up army vehicle and says I want to contest elections so you can't touch me? What kind of argument is this?

ASG: Whether the statements are to be believed or not to be believed is a matter of trial.

ASG: The Court cannot substitute itself in the place of the investigating officer.

ASG: The statements of witnesses... there are statements to show that outsiders were involved from the drafting of the policy to its formulation.

ASG: As far as other accused are concerned the courts have come to the conclusion that there are no grounds for bail because of rigours of Section 45 PMLA.

ASG: Large number of accused in this case have been found prima facie guilty of offence of money laundering by virtue of their bail being denied... Today we are not even at the stage of Section 45 or bail.

ASG now refers to Section 19 PMLA and ED's power to arrest.

ASG: There is no dispute that he (kejriwal) was produce in 24 hours of arrest. he was also given the grounds of arrest as required by Pankaj Bansal case.

ASG now refers to ED's remand application and the order passed by the trial court remanding Kejriwal to ED custody.

ASG: There are clear reasons given by us. The compliance of Section 19 PMLA is fulfilled.

ASG: Intimation of arrest was also given to his wife.

ASG: This trial court order is not a mechanical order. there is application of mind. The court has perused the material on record and the details furnished by the Investigating Officer.

ASG: There are not only Section 50 statements but even Section 164 Crpc statements. You can say ED puts pressure but can you say even magistrate put pressure on these people?

ASG: You can't hair split the statements and say "no no no these statements cannot be believed." They want to do it even at a stage which is prior to bail. This is unheard of.

ASG: All this cash payment to large number of people vendors advertisers and workers was done in cash. That cash not accounted for. the source of cash the kickbacks. It may be 100 crore or little less. Even AAP candidate has admitted this.

ASG: The money trail is there. We have located the money trail. The money may have been used and that's why it can't be found.

ASG: These details have come after the Manish Sisodia order so it is wrong to say that nothing new has come.

ASG: He is arrested on March 21. So it is not as if we are relying on stale old statements. It only figment of their imagination. They want to paint ED in poor picture.

ASG: The argument that last statement is of August 2023 is completely wrong.

ASG: This person (Kejriwal) has so much influence that he has got copy of previous chargesheets, they relied upon unrelied documents.

ASG: Kejriwal is guilty of making false statements.

ASG: They are saying that ED is not clean but he is clean and that he is holier than thou. Let me show how holy he is.

ASG: The argument that last statement is from August 2023. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. The trial court has recorded in its order that fresh statements have been recorded.

ASG: On this ground of suppression, the writ petition is liable to be thrown out lock, stock and barrel.

ASG: This is the reason why they did not want me to file reply on the first date of hearing. This is their fairness?

ASG: What is our case? Our case is that he was arrested for his role in dual capacity. He is involved individually which is clear from the approver statements.

ASG: They say these statements can't be relief upon. What happens is when IO calls a witness he makes some statements. He is then shown some more documents and confronted with more evidence. ye to third fourth fifth statement me asli cheez niklegi (loose translation: the real truth will come out in the fourth or fifth statement).

ASG: Just because some witness has not named you does not mean the statement is exculpatory. I am learning this criminal law for the first time.

ASG: They say you didn't arrest Buchhi Babu, that's why his witness can't be relied upon ... We have WhatsApp chats, we have hawala operators statements. It's not as if we are shooting in the dark. We have large amount of Income Tax data.

Court: Before I reserve it, I would like to see the case files.

ASG: We will mark and it show to my ladyship.

ASG: A person can be an accused if he is involved in the offence. But if someone else has committed an offence like a company, then you can't be held responsible unless there is provision for vicarious liability.

ASG: We have established, evidence shows that the kickbacks were used for election campaign of AAP in Goa. So the AAP is beneficiary because it used the money. The fact that Section 70 is applicable is also writ large.

ASG: My thrust is you (AAP) are an association of people.

ASG: Our case is that AAP is an association of individual... the definition of company is widened for the purpose of Section 70 PMLA. You may not be a company strictly speaking but you may be deemed to be a company if you are association of people.

ASG: Company under Section 70 is not only a private limited company but even association of individuals.

ASG refers to definition of a political party.

ASG: AAP is a company for the purpose of Section 70 PMLA. There can't be any dispute about it. It is proven.

ASG: A political party is an association of individuals. He (Kejriwal) was in-charge and responsible for the affairs of the AAP by virtue of his position. He was the national convenor of the party.

ASG: He takes all the decisions. The final decision with respect to all the major affairs of the party is taken by the national convenor. If the offence is committed by the company, he is responsible for it.

ASG: By company I mean AAP.

ASG: We have demonstrated that Arvind Kejriwal was responsible for the affairs of company (AAP) at the time when the offence of money laundering was committed.

ASG: Tomorrow if we feel that others were also responsible for it, we will make them responsible as well.

ASG: Forget his role, 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/party.

ASG: It is difficult to get evidence against when these influential people are involved, therefore, the law is that when these people are involved, approvers can be relied upon.

ASG: The order of the High Court in Sanjay Singh as far as his plea for illegal arrest still stand. The Supreme Court has not interfered with it. he has only been released on bail based on the concession given by me.

ASG concludes. Singhvi making rejoinder submissions.

Singhvi: My friend does not describe what my petition. He labels it everything else. He does not call it what it is. it is a challenge to illegal arrest under Section 19 PMLA. by mis-characterisation you want to make the petition not maintainable.

Singhvi refers to Pankaj Bansal judgment.

Singhvi: The exact same argument for which they suffered rejection in Bansal is being agitated here.

Singhvi: Ten days ago a review of the Pankaj Bansal judgement has been dismissed.

Singhvi: They pressed cognisance issue. I am amazed how they bring it. It may be expected from a novice like me but not by a veteran like Mr Raju. Cognisance happened two years ago. What relevance does it have to my arrest which happened on March 21.

ASG: You have not understood my argument.

Singhvi: Some arguments are un-understandable.

Court: As long as I understand arguments from both sides, it's okay.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari (for Kejriwal): It's like the judge is on trial (smiles).

Singhvi: On cognisance, we had pointed as late as of January 2024, it is clear that ED stated that I am not the accused... How is rejection of bail of co-accused of any relevance to challenge to validity of arrest?

Singhvi: Please see Manish Sisodia judgement. There is finding about the same ₹100 crore kickbacks. The court has said it is a matter of debate.

Singhvi: To suggest Sisodia not getting bail and therefore my challenge to arrest is not valid is a leap.

Singhvi: He says scam surfaced long back. I ask myself - long back has two dates: August 2022 and October 2023. That exactly makes my point why the arrest in the middle of the election. It is clear that scam of long back is being mis-utilised to create a non-level playing field.

Singhvi: Let's deal with proceeds of crime. He says if the body is not found murder case goes on. ED has repeatedly said that we are standalone statute offence. What is the standalone offence of PMLA?

Singhvi: A good example is suppose a bribe giver is caught on spot the same moment receiver is receiving the money. When the bribe is being given it is either a Prevention of Corruption Act or Income Tax Act. It is not a money laundering offence. Can ED jump into this situation and say that I still get jurisdiction when there is no proceeds of crime?

Singhvi: There is no evidence against him (Kejriwal) that he is involved in the offence of money laundering.

Singhvi: It is preposterous to say that Chief Minister of Delhi will be handling hawala transactions.

Singhvi: I want to ask - how does awareness of conspiracy become a valid ground for offence of Section 3 PMLA? Because you are aware of the conspiracy, you are an accused of PMLA? I am again saying that this is turning PMLA on its head.

Singhvi: He (ASG SV Raju) came with bizarre examples of terrorist blowing up army vehicle. This is nothing but a bizarre example. The second example is heinous crime.

Singhvi: Did any of these heinous crimes which they accuse me of happen after notification of election? He said terrorist blows up army vehicle and heinous crime. My ladyship may see the court recording to confirm he said this.

ASG: Are you recording the court proceedings? A large number of people heard you.

Singhvi: What is this?

Singhvi: My point is if a man, a Chief Minister blows up an army vehicle he should be arrest. But is that a fair analogy?

Singhvi: Section 70 PMLA is a misplaced argument. It nowhere permits a person who is not guilty to be covered under the company head. You can't just pick up 70 and apply it.

Singhvi: Knowledge, awareness and due diligence be damned and you make him an accused?

Singhvi refers to Sanjay Singh bail order yesterday.

Singhvi: They say this is an affirmation of HC's order on Sanjay Singh?

Court: Okay I am reserving the judgement.