Supreme Court reserves verdict in Arvind Kejriwal plea challenging arrest, remand

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict in Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Excise Policy case [Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement]..A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta today went through the written records of the case and asked the ED to submit a chart to show what new evidence had emerged after former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia's arrest to justify its decision to arrest Kejriwal."Arguments heard. Judgment reserved," it said..Supreme Court questions ED on statement of witness who did not implicate Arvind Kejriwal earlier.The Court clarified that Kejriwal would be at liberty to apply for bail in the meantime. .Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in a case alleging that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and others to create loopholes in the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22 to favour some liquor sellers for undue favours.The Court had recently granted interim bail to Kejriwal till June 1 to enable him to campaign for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.The Delhi High Court had earlier rejected Kejriwal's plea against his arrest, leading to the present appeal before the apex court..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, today argued that the material being cited by ED now to defend Kejriwal's arrest was not present during his arrest."Every material in ground of arrest predates July, August 2023. All this evidence was in Sisodia case... so what was new in Arvind Kejriwal case ... evidence is all prior to August 2023," Singhvi said. There was no material in the "ground of arrest" given to Kejriwal about the use of funds in Goa elections, the senior counsel said.He was responding to the ED's allegations that the alleged bribe money received in the excise policy case had been diverted for AAP's election campaign in Goa."Entire charge is ₹100 crores.. August 2023 charge this is. This is old news.. March 2024 there was arrest... no money has been transferred," it was submitted..Singhvi also objected to ED's reliance on a witness statement claiming that Kejriwal had stayed in a seven-star hotel in Goa."Many things are thrown across the bar... someone Charanpreet Singh has come up now.. where is this Charanpreet Singh in reason to believe? Legislature has used a threshold in Section 19 [PMLA] and the prosecutor is re-writing this?," he said.Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) allows the central agency to arrest a person if it has "reasons to believe" that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering.While referring to the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta's written note in the case, Singhvi said,"This note is in complete error.. you cannot change your submissions midstream after I have argued. He says that all that is required is some material before the officer to show there is some case against accused... best is to repeal Section 19 milord.. what else to say.".On the charge of ₹100 crore bribe in the case, Singhvi said there was no witness statement which says that the money was paid to Kejriwal. He added that an approver's statement only talks about ₹25 Crore."So 100 became 25 and [Abhishek] Boinpally [accused] now says he did not [get] a penny. No question of evaluating this in the ground of arrest," he submitted. Singhvi also referred to purchase of electoral bonds by Aurobindo Pharma in which ED's approver P Sarath Chandra Reddy is a director."Sarath Reddy is the ₹55 crore electoral bond purchaser and the one with back pain.. ED had (initially) opposed bail being granted him.. He is (now) trustworthy enough to put me behind bars," he said..Singhvi also took strong objection to the ED's submission that chats between Kejriwal and hawala operators had been found."Are we addressing the court or the press," the senior counsel said as he accused the ED of suppressing the information and making the claim at last stage to prejudice Kejriwal.At this stage, SG Mehta said,"The hawala operators have been arrested now and it was recovered from them.".On Thursday, the Court had had questioned the stand of ED with regard to the testimony of a witness, who had not incriminated Kejriwal in his earlier statement.In response, the ED had argued that it was for the Investigating Officer (IO) to believe or disbelieve the earlier witness statement and a court can't question that.Today, before Singhvi's arguments in rejoinder, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju concluded his arguments. .Why would ED not supply 'reasons to believe' guilt?.ASG Raju submitted that the ED had proven that kickbacks were sent through hawala and then in Goa, it was distributed by the two persons handling the election campaign. At this stage, the Court asked whether it had been mentioned in the "reasons to believe" when the arrest was made under Section 19 PMLA.When ASG Raju said the "reason to believe" is not given to the accused, the Court asked how the accused would challenge arrest when it is not supplied."The reason to believe is the material before him (ED officer). In criminal law, they are not entitled to any copy before chargesheet is filed... else evidence will be tampered and witnesses will be threatened," Raju said in response. The Court remarked that the Investigating Officer (IO) should not exercise the power to arrest under Section 19 unless "they have sufficient material to show that he is guilty"..Can't look into evidence at this stage, would open pandora's box: ED.ASG Raju also argued that the Court at this stage cannot look at the credibility of evidence. In this context, he addressed the Court on the provision related to the procedure for framing of charge."There is difference between criminal law and administrative law and at the stage of discharge, the court cannot look at any other material apart from what the prosecution submits at all," Raju submitted.ASG Raju also argued that if such plea to look into arrest is entertained, then it will open pandora's box. "Every other time someone will come up with a petition like this. Magistrate is not required to read up thousands of papers and burn the midnight oil."