Read Time: 07 minutes
The ED has accused the Aam Aadmi Party, led by Arvind Kejriwal, of receiving ₹100 crores in kickbacks related to the now defunct liquor excise policy of Delhi, which was allegedly used in the party's election campaign in Goa.
On December 11, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Arvind Kejriwal argued that ‘If ED is not available to argue the case, then they should withdraw their case against Arvind Kejriwal’. These arguements were made before the Delhi High Court in an application filed by Directorate of Enforcement challenging the grant of bail to Arvind Kejriwal.
Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain had appeared through video conferencing seeking adjournment of the case on grounds that Additional Solicitor General SV Raju was out of the town to attend a family wedding.
Senior Advocate Chaudhari vehemently opposed adjournment, contending that ED has been following this trend ever since the application was filed. Advocate Chaudhury further conteded that ‘ED is using this tactic to keep cases pending without any motivation to argue the cases’.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri listed the matter for January 17, 2025.
Updates in Connected Matters:
On November 21, the Delhi High Court issued a notice in response to a plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal, challenging the trial court's decision to take cognizance of a chargesheet submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to the liquor policy scam.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, argued that the ED had obtained the requisite sanctions to prosecute Arvind Kejriwal. He further stated, “Let me file an affidavit,” and informed the court that the trial court was currently examining the case documents.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing Kejriwal, sought a stay on the proceedings, contending that the ED’s seventh prosecution complaint was identical to its sixth complaint. "There is nothing afresh which has been investigated and no further investigation, this is the same prosecution complaint," he said.
Recently, the court issued a notice to the ED regarding a petition by Kejriwal challenging the summonses issued to him based on the ED’s complaints in the money laundering case related to the now-defunct liquor excise policy.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case in August 2022, alleging corruption in the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy. The ED initiated a parallel investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), issuing multiple summonses to Kejriwal between October 2023 and February 2024. Although Kejriwal submitted written responses, he failed to appear in person, prompting the filing of prosecution complaints. He argued that his absence was not deliberate, as he had provided valid reasons and consistently expressed his willingness to cooperate.
Kejriwal further contended that the trial court had improperly taken cognizance and issued summonses without adhering to the provisions of the PMLA, which take precedence over the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in matters concerning excise policy. He also claimed that the ED had neither sought the required sanctions for prosecution nor demonstrated that his non-compliance was intentional. Additionally, he asserted that the case should have been heard in a Special Court designated under the PMLA, as mandated by law.
In August 2024, the Rouse Avenue Court authorized the CBI to initiate prosecution against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the now-defunct liquor excise policy case.
For ED: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain with Advocates Vivek Gurnani Pranjal Tripathi and Kartik SabharwalFor Kejriwal: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari with Advocates Vivek Jain, Irshad, Rajat Bhardawaj, Sadiq Noor, Arveen and Kunal RajCase Title: Directorate Of Enforcement v Arvind Kejriwal (CRL.M.C. 4858/2024)
Please Login or Register
