[Excise Policy Scam] Vijay Nair Didn't Report To Me But To Aatishi Marlena And Saurav Bharadwaj: Arvind Kejriwal To ED

Read Time: 05 minutes


However, the ED asserted that Nair worked closely alongside Kejriwal and allegedly acted as his representative in engagements with stakeholders from the liquor industry.

During his custody with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said that his engagement with Vijay Nair was restricted and that Nair's reporting line was to Aatishi Marlena and Saurav Bharadwaj. Nevertheless, in its affidavit before the Rouse Avenue court, the ED argued that Nair worked closely alongside Kejriwal and allegedly acted as his representative in engagements with stakeholders from the liquor industry.

The ED asserted that Manish Sisodia, serving as the Deputy Chief Minister, along with other officials, played crucial roles in shaping decisions regarding the excise policy for the fiscal year 2021-22 without proper authorization, allegedly aiming to benefit specific licensees following the tender process.

Throughout the investigation, the ED maintained that Kejriwal played a central role in orchestrating the Delhi Excise Scam in collusion with ministers of the Delhi Government, leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and other individuals. Kejriwal allegedly played a significant part in formulating the excise policy and seeking kickbacks from liquor businessmen in exchange for policy favors. Additionally, it was claimed that proceeds from these illicit activities were redirected to the Goa election campaign of AAP, where Kejriwal held a prominent position.

AAP faced accusations of being the primary beneficiary of the unlawfully acquired funds, with considerable amounts reportedly diverted to the party's election campaign. The ED argued that Kejriwal, as the ultimate authority within AAP, was deeply engaged in various aspects of the scam, including policy formulation, kickback schemes, and the utilization of illicit proceeds.

Despite receiving multiple summons and opportunities to cooperate with the investigation, Kejriwal allegedly deliberately disregarded these summons and failed to provide accurate information during recorded statements under PMLA. During custodial interrogation, Kejriwal purportedly offered evasive responses and withheld information, despite being presented with evidence implicating his involvement.

In response to these developments, the Enforcement Directorate sought Kejriwal's remand to judicial custody for 15 days, citing concerns about potential witness tampering and the complex nature of the ongoing investigation. The court was urged to weigh the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for continued custody to ensure a comprehensive and impartial inquiry into the matter.

As the investigation advances, greater scrutiny is placed on the roles of Kejriwal and other implicated individuals in the alleged corruption scandal, underscoring the importance of upholding transparency and accountability in governance.

Case Title: ED v Arvind Kejriwal