Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, dismissed the petition filed by Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the CBI, claiming it to be an ‘insurance arrest’. Whereas the CBI termed Kejriwal as the 'sutradhar' (mastermind) of the policy scam. 

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “The arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI was legal”. 

Arvind Kejriwal, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, asserted that the submissions made by the ED were legally indefensible and exhibited an overbearing attitude towards the courts. He argued that the language used by the ED on its grounds before the court deserved criticism and had the potential to demoralize the judiciary.

Kejriwal further stated that no offense was established against him under Section 3 of the PMLA, and his life and liberty should have been protected from unjustified violations by the ED, which he claimed acted with malicious intent.

Kejriwal maintained that his custody by the ED was unwarranted and intended to harass him, as no pertinent evidence was examined. He emphasized the lack of proof that the AAP received funds or kickbacks from the South group for the Goa election campaign.

In contrast, Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, representing CBI, stated that within a month, the investigation team had gathered substantial evidence, culminating in the filing of the chargesheet. SPP Singh boldly labeled Kejriwal as the 'Sutradhar' or mastermind of the excise policy scam. He detailed how Kejriwal, in his capacity as head of the Cabinet, signed and circulated the controversial policy among his colleagues, securing unanimous approval within a day during the chaotic days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

SPP Singh further asserted that the media played a pivotal role in this saga. He asserted ‘When the entire thing blew up in the media, the CM took ex post facto approval from the council of ministers’. 

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v CBI