In a significant development from New Delhi, the High Court today addressed a petition by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is contesting his arrest and subsequent six-day custody under the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the controversial liquor policy case. Despite the gravity of his appeal, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma deferred granting any immediate relief to Kejriwal, instead, choosing to issue a notice on his application for interim release.
The hearing took an interesting turn when Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, pointed out that Kejriwal’s legal team failed to provide the agency with a copy of the petition in advance. This procedural misstep, according to Raju, hindered the ED’s opportunity to prepare a thorough response, emphasizing the necessity for the court to consider the agency’s position before any decisions regarding Kejriwal’s interim relief could be made.
In the courtroom, Kejriwal’s representation, led by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the petition mainly questioned the basis of the remand and thus did not necessitate responses to proceed. They also highlighted logistical challenges in serving the petition earlier, attributing the delay to the weekend closure of the Registry.
As Justice Sharma deliberated over the proceedings, she underscored the importance of a fair and just hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice by ensuring both parties had the opportunity to present their cases comprehensively. Consequently, she refused the request for Kejriwal’s immediate release, indicating that such a decision would prematurely conclude the main petition itself.
The backdrop of this legal drama involves Kejriwal’s arrest on March 21, which was followed by a trial court ordering his ED custody until March 28. This arrest came amidst allegations of a liquor policy scam, suggesting a deep-rooted conspiracy to financially benefit certain private entities through the policy’s implementation, with Kejriwal purportedly at the helm of these operations.
The argument session saw Singhvi vigorously defending Kejriwal, invoking the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar to challenge the necessity of his arrest. He argued that the arrest was not only unnecessary but also a strategic move to disrupt the political equilibrium ahead of the imminent general elections, thereby infringing upon democratic principles and the constitution’s basic structure.
Singhvi further alleged that the central probe agency coerced statements against Kejriwal, intensifying the legal battle’s stakes. He drew parallels between Kejriwal’s case and that of another AAP leader, Manish Sisodia, suggesting a pattern of unjustified accusations based on similar charges, thereby questioning the consistency and fairness of the ED’s allegations.
This legal contest unfolds against a backdrop of Kejriwal’s non-compliance with ED’s summons, with the agency accusing him of evading legal responsibilities, thus leading to his arrest. The case implicates not only Kejriwal but also other significant AAP leaders, thereby casting a shadow over the party’s leadership and governance.
The ED’s allegations paint a broader conspiracy involving undue advantages to certain wholesalers through the excise policy, orchestrated under Kejriwal and his aides’ directions. This narrative places Kejriwal at the center of a complex legal and political storm, raising questions about governance, policy manipulation, and the integrity of political leaders.
In parallel to this legal battle, public interest litigations (PILs) have emerged, calling for Kejriwal’s removal from office and restricting his administrative powers during custody. These developments reflect the broader societal and political ramifications of the case, highlighting the intersection of law, governance, and politics.
As the Delhi High Court schedules further hearings, the case against Kejriwal remains a focal point of national interest, emblematic of the challenges facing India’s legal and political landscapes. With Kejriwal’s future hanging in the balance, the court’s decisions in the coming days will not only determine his personal fate but also potentially reshape the political dynamics ahead of the general elections. This saga continues to unfold, embodying the complexities of justice, power, and democracy.