New Delhi: Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court on Thursday extended the Enforcement Directorate’s custody of chief minister Arvind Kejriwal till April 1 in the excise policy-linked money laundering case. Mr Kejriwal, who was produced in court, responded to a media query on lieutenant-governor V.K. Saxena’s remark that the “government cannot run from jail” by saying that “this is a political conspiracy… The public will give a befitting reply”. He went on to add that it was apparent that the ED was going all out to “destroy the AAP”.
The Delhi high court also observed that there was “no legal bar in running the government from jail”. While dismissing a PIL seeking the removal of Mr Kejriwal from the CM’s post, the high court said there was “no scope of judicial interference on this aspect”.
Mr Kejriwal told the Rouse Avenue court that a smokescreen of the AAP being corrupt has been created before the nation. He said: “I am named by four witnesses in the excise policy case. Are four statements enough to arrest a sitting CM?”
Mr Kejriwal alleged that Sarath Chandra Reddy donated Rs 55 crores to the BJP. “I have evidence of this. The money trail is established as he donated funds after being arrested.”
Mr Reddy is the director of Aurobindo Pharma Ltd and one of the co-accused-turned-approvers in the case.
The ED had sought seven more days’ custody of the AAP chief, but special judge Kaveri Baweja said he has to be produced before the court on April 1 at 11 am. The AAP national convener was arrested by the agency in the excise matter on March 21, and was subsequently remanded to ED custody till March 28 by the court.
In its fresh remand plea, the ED said during Mr Kejriwal’s custodial interrogation, his statements were recorded over five days but he was “giving evasive replies”. It said that the statements of three other persons relevant to the case have also been recorded during the remand period.
During his custody, the ED said Mr Kejriwal was confronted with C. Arvind, then personal secretary to deputy CM Manish Sisodia, who was handed over the draft Group of Ministers (GoM) report for the 2021-22 excise policy at the residence of the chief minister.
The investigating agency said the statement of one of the AAP candidates in the 2022 Goa elections was also recorded during Mr Kejriwal’s custody. It revealed that the candidate did not have any money and his election expenditure was “taken care of by the AAP office in Delhi only through their associates”.
The remand plea said during custody, data from the mobile phone of the chief minister’s wife have been extracted and were being analysed. “However, data from other four digital devices seized during the search at Mr Kejriwal’s premises on March 21 are yet to be extracted as the arrestee has sought time in providing the password and login credentials after consulting with his lawyers.”
The application said the movable and immovable property details, income-tax returns, and other financial details sought from Mr Kejriwal were yet to be provided by the chief minister or his family members.
The ED said it had sought details regarding appointments made with the chief minister in the online portal in his office.
It said during the interrogation, summonses were issued to senior excise officials in Punjab who were “involved in the arm-twisting of certain (liquor) wholesalers of Delhi”.
The probe agency said when the demand for bribes was not fulfilled, these officials either shut down their factories or did not allow the wholesalers to dispatch their goods to Punjab. The plea said the officials sought time on the summonses,
citing the hooch tragedy in Sangrur.
The plea said: “The arrestee needs to be interrogated further in the wake of these reasons or findings. Hence, it is imperative in the interest of investigation that seven days’ further custodial remand of Arvind Kejriwal may be granted…”
Delhi CM’s wife Sunita Kejriwal claimed he was not keeping well and was being “harassed a lot”. Ms Kejriwal, who had come for her husband’s court hearing, told reporters: “His sugar levels are fluctuating. He is being harassed a lot. This tyranny won’t last and people will give a reply.”
In the high court, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said: “Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and having perused through the paperback, this court is of the view that there is no scope of judicial interference vis a vis the relief sought of removal of Respondent No. 4 (Mr Kejriwal) from the post of CM of the Government of NCT of Delhi. It is for the other wing of the government to examine the issue in accordance with the law”.
The high court dismissed the plea clarifying that it has not commented on the merits of the case. The bench said: “If there is a constitutional failure, the President or governor will act on it. We will not act on it. We read in today’s newspaper that the L-G is examining this issue. It will go to the President for examination. That is up to them, it belongs to a different wing. There may be practical difficulties but the question is if there is any legal bar today… The executive branch can look into this aspect. It may take some time and they may arrive at a conclusion, probably this situation was not envisaged. But how does the court get into all this? Let the executive branch examine it, whatever they have to do they will do.”
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the continuance of Mr Kejriwal as chief minister after his arrest in the money-laundering case relating to the liquor policy has degraded the credibility of the Delhi government in the eyes of the general public. He argued that Mr Kejriwal’s continuance as the chief minister would lead not only to obstruction of due process of law and disrupt the course of justice but also to breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state.
The plea moved by Surjit Singh Yadav called on the Centre, the state of Delhi through the chief secretary and the principal secretary to the lieutenant-governor to answer under what authority Mr Kejriwal was holding the post of chief minister, and sought his removal from the post.
Mr Yadav’s plea submitted the chief minister is incapable of transacting any business while in jail. It said that if he is allowed to do so any material, irrespective of its secretive nature, would have to be scanned thoroughly by the prison authorities before it reaches his hands. Such act, the plea added, would amount to direct breach of the oath of secrecy administered to the chief minister under the Third Schedule of the Constitution.
The plea submitted that Transaction of Business of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules 1993 empower a chief minister to call for files from any department of the Cabinet. It said that Mr Kejriwal by virtue of being designated as the chief minister “would be well within his rights to demand for the investigation of files, wherein, he has been arraigned as an accused” and such a situation is against the ethos of criminal jurisprudence.
