Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, in its dismissal of Arvind Kejriwal's petition contesting his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), prima facie opined that 'Kejriwal played an active role in concealing'. Furthermore, the court emphasized ED's investigation that suggested Kejriwal’s involvement in both his individual capacity and in his role as the national convener of AAP. 

In response to Kejriwal's accusations of questioning the legitimacy and accuracy of the approver's testimonies, the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asserted that 'doubting or casting aspersions on the statements of an approver is tantamount to undermining the integrity of the judicial process itself'.

The court reiterated the sanctity of the judicial process and emphasized the significance of honoring the role of an approver, an established legal mechanism with a rich history in jurisprudence. Furthermore, it elucidated that the 'law concerning approvers is not a recent enactment but rather has endured for over a century, serving as a vital mechanism for justice'. The court further elucidated that trials have been and will continue to be conducted where the statements of approvers are relied upon, highlighting the legal precedent and significance of such testimonies.

In response to the arguments of Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenging the legality of the statements of the co-accused such as MS Reddy or Sharad Reddy, the court asserted that such matters cannot be prematurely questioned at this stage. However, it underscored that individuals, including Arvind Kejriwal, would retain the right to contest such matters during the trial, ensuring due process and fair proceedings.

Moreover, the court unequivocally stated that it cannot intervene in the jurisdiction of the trial court, emphasizing the principle of judicial restraint and respect for the hierarchical structure of the legal system. 

Regarding Singhvi’s argument that ED could have adopted alternate methods to question the CM over arresting him, the bench highlighted that public figures, including those in positions of authority, must adhere to the same legal standards as any other citizen and are also not exempt from accountability.

In discussing the rationale behind the necessity of arrest, the court referenced previous legal precedents and affirmed that sufficient material existed to justify the arrest of Kejriwal.

Regarding contentions that such arrest and remand were politically motivated, the court firmly rejected any attempt to inject political considerations into legal proceedings, emphasizing that the realm of legal adjudication is strictly confined to interpreting and applying the law. It asserted that 'while politics may influence governance, it has no place within the judiciary, which must remain independent and impartial'. It reiterated the judiciary's obligation to uphold the law impartially, free from political considerations or influence.

Furthermore, the court emphasized its 'commitment to upholding constitutional morality, ensuring that legal proceedings are guided solely by legal provisions rather than political motivations'. It underscored the duty of the court to uphold the law of the land, safeguarding constitutional principles and preserving the integrity of the legal system.

Therefore, the court dismissed Kejriwal's petition, affirming the legality of his arrest and subsequent remand. The court concluded by reiterating its adherence to legal principles and assured that the order would be made available for public scrutiny shortly.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement