Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Wednesday, permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation to interrogate Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal concerning the now defunct liquor excise policy. Arvind Kejriwal was scheduled to be presented before Special Judge (PC Act) Amitabh Rawat. Sunita Kejriwal, his wife, arrived at the court ahead of the proceedings. 

Kejriwal, represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari and Advocate Vivek Jain, submitted an application requesting access to a previous application submitted to the court, which allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to interrogate Kejriwal. Advocate Vivek Jain informed the court that they learned of this development through media reports and had not received either the application or the order that was passed.

Senior Advocate Chaudhari appeared via video conference, asserting that the CBI acted with bias. He expressed serious concerns about the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and requested the court to grant them access to the relevant documents and postpone the hearing until the following day.

Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, argued that the CBI could have initiated these proceedings either before or during the elections but chose to seek the court's permission at the appropriate time. He emphasized that the CBI fulfilled its duties and satisfied the court’s conscience every time, yet faced continuous scrutiny.

Advocate DP Singh argued that the law did not require the CBI to inform the defense team about their intentions to interrogate Kejriwal. Advocate DP Singh also mentioned a similar situation involving K Kavitha, asserting that the CBI only needed the court's permission since Kejriwal was already in judicial custody. The decision to investigate, according to Singh, was within the CBI’s prerogative.

The CBI sought custody of Arvind Kejriwal. Advocate DP Singh stated their desire to take Kejriwal into custody, explaining that since Kejriwal was in judicial custody, they had sought the court’s permission for interrogation. 

However, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari argued that the defense was not given an opportunity to respond. He requested that the court allow them to file a response to the remand application, asserting that delaying this process would not cause any significant harm. Advocate Singh countered that the necessary procedures should be allowed to proceed, and any issues regarding the Section 41A CrPC notice could be addressed subsequently.

Senior Advocate Chaudhari insisted that no Section 41A notice had been issued by the CBI, to which Advocate Singh responded, questioning the defense's repeated objections. Senior Advocate Chaudhari warned that if the court permitted Kejriwal’s arrest, it would be effectively endorsing the remand, likening it to the court allowing its authority to be misused against Kejriwal.

Senior Advocate Chaudhari further contended that by permitting the CBI to arrest Kejriwal without prior notice to the defense, the court would be enabling the CBI to exercise powers under Section 41 CrPC. He emphasized that this would infringe upon his fundamental rights by denying him an effective hearing. He urged the court to grant the defense an opportunity to file a proper response, promising to submit it by the end of the day and requesting a hearing the following morning.

Advocate Singh stated that he would prepare the grounds for arrest and return to the court, stressing that there was no requirement for advance notice of the remand application. He requested that the process be initiated, allowing the CBI to take Kejriwal and finalize the arrest immediately. Advocate Vivek JainAdvocate Singh reiterated that the defense did not have the right to advance notice. He assured that once the arrest was made, all necessary applications would be provided.