“Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea Against ED Arrest: Duel Over Allegations and Immunity Claims”

In Short

• ED tells Delhi High Court it wants to attach some properties of AAP
• Says Kejriwal’s plea challenging arrest should be rejected
• Says probe on Kejriwal’s role at nascent stage

The Delhi High Court has deferred its ruling on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging his detention by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and his subsequent remand in connection with the liquor policy case.

Kejriwal contends that his arrest was a ploy to undermine his party’s influence ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, while the ED counters that “someone who loots the country” cannot claim immunity just because of impending polls.

In the courtroom, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, argued against Kejriwal’s plea, urging the court to dismiss it. Raju expressed the ED’s dilemma over attaching properties of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) implicated in the liquor policy case, citing concerns about the timing vis-a-vis the elections.

He emphasized the need for accountability, asserting that regardless of one’s political stature, criminal acts warrant consequences. Raju also affirmed the ED’s progress in tracing the money trail associated with the case, despite difficulties in locating the funds.

Responding to allegations of political vendetta, Raju drew parallels with scenarios where criminals seek political shelter. He contended that such arguments cannot shield individuals from legal repercussions.

Kejriwal’s arrest on March 21, followed by his extension in ED custody, and subsequent remand to judicial custody till April 15, were highlighted during the proceedings.

Referring to Kejriwal’s prior statement in court expressing no objections to the ED’s custody extension, Raju accused him of contradicting his stance.

He argued that Kejriwal’s acquiescence negated his present petition. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, contested the ED’s narrative, questioning the timing and motives behind the arrest, particularly amid the Model Code of Conduct’s enforcement.

Singhvi rebuffed Raju’s analogy linking terrorists’ political aspirations with Kejriwal’s case as far-fetched and inappropriate. He vehemently denied any evidence implicating Kejriwal in money laundering activities, dismissing the notion of a Chief Minister being involved in illicit transactions.

The court has reserved its judgment on Kejriwal’s plea, underscoring the high-stakes legal duel between Team Kejriwal and the ED over allegations and claims of immunity.