Arvind Kejriwal says ED must remove its mask, agency says Chief Minister was key conspirator

Delhi Chief Minister (CM) and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal on Friday questioned the partiality of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the timing of his arrest by the central agency in a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy. .Kejriwal, while opposing his remand sought by the ED, asked why the agency waited this long to arrest him just on the eve of Lok Sabha elections if they had material against him all along."They say they had all the material against me.. then why did you wait till after the model code came into force? Were you waiting for this? The right to participate in election is a politician's right," Kejriwal's counsel Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhuri told Special Judge (PC) Act Kaveri Baweja of Rouse Avenue court.He also said that ED must lift its veil and reveal who it actually represents."They should remove their mask and show us who they exactly represent," Chaudhuri argued.The special judge was hearing the plea by the ED seeking Kejriwal's custody for ten days. Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 from his residence.The arrest came hours after the Delhi High Court refused to pass orders granting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor any protection from coercive action.A Division Bench of the High Court said that no interim orders were called for at this stage.Kejriwal also moved a plea before the Supreme Court to stop his arrest but later chose to withdraw that plea.The ED then moved the special court for custody of Kejriwal, saying that he was the key conspirator in the case as he was directly involved in the formulation of the liquor policy. "As CM, Arvind Kejriwal was the key conspirator of the conspiracy. He was directly involved in formulation of the policy... He was involved in handling of proceeds of crime as well in the Goa election campaign. Kejriwal is the head of the party," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju told the Court on behalf of ED.The ASG also said that Kejriwal willfully disobeyed the summons issued to him by the ED and refused to cooperate with the probe."He has willfully disobeyed the summons. The conduct of disobeying the summons... At the times of search he did not give correct facts. He was non cooperative in investigation. We want to interrogate him and gather information," Raju said. Further, he argued that the kickbacks received through the liquor policy scam was used by AAP to fund the Goa assembly elections."There is concrete evidence to show there is a scam and fraud. The excise policy was changed to fund Goa elections for AAP," the ASG said..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for Kejriwal, opposed the ED's plea for remand.He said that statements of witnesses cannot be a ground to arrest him because of the pattern it revealed."There is a new pattern now. You have a witness, he does not name Kejriwal in statement one or statement two. You then arrest him and oppose his bail vehemently. He then turns approver. And one fine day he gives a brilliant statement," Singhvi said.He added there was no direct evidence against Kejriwal except the statements of witnesses."There is no direct evidence except these statements saying I met Mr Kejriwal etc. If people are arrested and pardoned then they will definitely name anyone," Singhvi contended..He also said that this was the first and only time that a sitting chief minister has been arrested in India."Four senior leaders of his part are arrested. This means before even the first vote is cast, the results are there. Democracy is the basic structure of the constitution. You are creating a non level playing field. This is not a rhetorical statement," he argued..Background.The ED’s money laundering probe stems from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 17, 2022 in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. The CBI case was registered on a complaint made by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022. It has been alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by AAP leaders, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and other unidentified and unnamed private persons/entities during the stage of the policy’s formulation.The conspiracy, it has been alleged, stemmed from some of the loopholes “intentionally” left or created in the policy. These were allegedly meant to favour some licensees and conspirators post the tender process.Sisodia and AAP Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh are already behind bars in the case.On March 15, 2024, the ED also arrested the daughter of Bharat Rashtra Samiti legislator and former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao, K Kavitha in the case.Kavitha too is behind bars after the Supreme Court refused relief to her on Friday..Arguments today.After Kejriwal was arrested on Thursday, he was brought before the Court today by the ED which sought his custody for ten days.ASG Raju told the Court that the agency has complied with the requirements under Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). "His relatives have been informed and copy of the remand application has been given to them. Grounds of arrest also he has received. We have compiled with Sec 19 (1) PMLA," the ASG said..Raju further said that the liquor policy was made in a manner that enabled bribery."We talk about the background of the Excise Policy. The expert committee was constituted but it was a sham committee. The policy was made in such a manner that it would enable the taking of bribes and recoupment of people who gave the bribes," he said.He further claimed that Kejriwal demanded kickbacks from the 'South Group in exchange for favours."This is corroborated by the statements," he stated.In exchange for kickbacks, the South Group got control of liquor business in Delhi, ASG further said.It was also argued that Kejriwal was constantly in touch with Deputy CM Manish Sisodia."Vijay Nair (another accused) was staying in a house near Mr Kejriwal. He was staying in the house given to Mr Kailash Gahlot, a minister of the Delhi government. He acted as the middle man between South Group and AAP," Raju contended.He also said the proceeds of the crime were used for Goa elections by the AAP."Proceeds of crime are not only the ₹100 crore bribe received but also the profits made by the bribe payers. It was over ₹600 crores. ₹45 crores was transferred to Goa through hawala," it was submitted.The money trail is corroborated not only by statements of witnesses but also by call data records (CDRs), he said."We have also examined the money trail backwards. The money to Goa came through four routes. The allegations are also corroborated by one of the AAP candidates in Goa. This person was also paid in cash. Where did they get the cash? it was from these kickbacks," the ASG said.Though AAP was the beneficiary of these, Kejriwal is vicariously liable for the same, it was argued."Apart from from personal liability, he (Kejriwal) is also liable to be punished for vicarious liability. He is also responsible for the affairs of the AAP. He is responsible for the conduct of the party. he is the national convenor and responsible for the party at national level," ASG contended..Senior Advocate Singhvi said that arrest under PMLA is more stringent since bail is also stringent."The test for arrest is more stringent because the grounds for bail are more stringent. There has to be a causal link between material in my possession and reason to believe. The first thing to be shown is necessity for arrest. The power of arrest is not equal to the need of arrest. Just because you have the power to arrest does not mean you will arrest. The fact that you have the power does not mean you will exercise it," Singhvi submitted.Thus, the ED has to prove that it was necessary to arrest Kejriwal."What is the necessity to arrest this man in March 2024? The entire remand application is the copy paste of grounds of arrest. You say you need to further trace the money trail (but that) can't be a ground of arrest. It can be grounds for a questionnaire or video conference," he said.On the alleged money trail, Singhvi said that there has to be cogent proof of involvement."Money can't keep changing hands indefinitely and then you arrest me ... In your grounds of arrest, there is no reason to arrest me. You have to show how I am involved," Singhvi stated.He further said that a remanding court is not an automatic rubber stamp."Eighty percent of the people have not named Arvind Kejriwal in their statements. The reason of arrest of one of the witnesses is non cooperation and he was arrested a day after he did not name Kejriwal," it was argued.Remand should not be done in a routine manner, he added."Please do not look at the remand as a routine ... It requires application of significant judicial mind. There are larger issues of democracy involved. Please keep that in mind," he said in conclusion. .Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari made submissions on behalf of Kejriwal as well.He said that the ED indulged in subterfuge by initially saying that Kejriwal was not being summoned as an accused."They tell me on January 12 that I am being called in my personal capacity and not as the CM. They tell me I am not an accused. It is loud and clear," Chaudhari said.He stressed that the cooperation or non-cooperation with the probe is for the Court to examine and that the ED cannot act as the judge, jury and executioner."My cooperation is for the court to examine but here the ED is acting as judge jury and executioner," Chaudhauri underlined.To buttress this argument he said that the remand application contradicted the ED's summons."The first line in remand is that 'as CM, he was the kingpin' ... On January 12, they had said I am being called not as CM. The opening lines of remand application destroy their subterfuge and misrepresentation that I was not being called as AAP chief and CM," Chaudhari contended.Chaudhari also questioned the timing of the arrest right before the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. "They say they had all the material against me ... Then why did you wait till after the model code came into force? Were you waiting for this? The right to participate in election is a politician's right," he contended..He also questioned the reliance placed by ED on the Companies Act, 2013."They referred to Companies Act. A political party is not a company... They say 'forget the High Court, I will decide that you AAP are a company and I will arrest the CM in his personal capacity or as CM or whatever,'" Chaudhuri stated.